Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] arm64: barrier: add DGH macros to control memory accesses merging
From: Xiongfeng Wang <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-13 07:27:13
Also in:
lkml, netdev
Hi, On 2021/6/29 19:11, Xiongfeng Wang wrote:
Hi Will, On 2021/6/22 20:16, Will Deacon wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 07:11:09PM +0800, Guangbin Huang wrote:quoted
From: Xiongfeng Wang <redacted> DGH prohibits merging memory accesses with Normal-NC or Device-GRE attributes before the hint instruction with any memory accesses appearing after the hint instruction. Provide macros to expose it to the arch code.Hmm. The architecture states: | DGH is a hint instruction. A DGH instruction is not expected to be | performance optimal to merge memory accesses with Normal Non-cacheable | or Device-GRE attributes appearing in program order before the hint | instruction with any memory accesses appearing after the hint instruction | into a single memory transaction on an interconnect. which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, in all honesty.quoted
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <redacted> Signed-off-by: Cheng Jian <redacted> Signed-off-by: Yufeng Mo <redacted> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 7 +++++++ arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h index 8418c1bd8f04..d723899328bd 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h@@ -90,6 +90,13 @@ .endm /* + * Data gathering hint + */ + .macro dgh + hint #6 + .endm + +/* * RAS Error Synchronization barrier */ .macro esbdiff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h index 451e11e5fd23..02e1735706d2 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #define dmb(opt) asm volatile("dmb " #opt : : : "memory") #define dsb(opt) asm volatile("dsb " #opt : : : "memory") +#define dgh() asm volatile("hint #6" : : : "memory")Although I'm fine with this in arm64, I don't think this is the interface which drivers should be using. Instead, once we know what this instruction is supposed to do, we should look at exposing it as part of the I/O barriers and providing a NOP implementation for other architectures. That way, drivers can use it without having to have the #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 stuff that you have in the later patches here.How about we adding a interface called flush_wc_writeX(), which can be used to flush the write-combined buffers to the device immediately. I found it has been disscussed in the below link, but it is unnessary in their situation. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200102180830.66676-3-liran.alon@oracle.com/
Do you have some suggestions on this problem ? How about we adding an interface called flush_wc_writeX() ? Thanks, Xiongfeng
Thanks, Xiongfengquoted
Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel .
_______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel