From: jszhang@marvell.com (Jisheng Zhang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] net: mv643xx_eth: use {readl|writel}_relaxed instead of readl/writel
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 20:19:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160513201955.256e5169@xhacker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3966837.tFk2PD8QFb@wuerfel>
Dear Arnd,
On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:09:43 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 13 May 2016 19:59:19 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > /* port register accessors **************************************************/
> > static inline u32 rdl(struct mv643xx_eth_private *mp, int offset)
> > {
> > - return readl(mp->shared->base + offset);
> > + return readl_relaxed(mp->shared->base + offset);
> > }
> >
> > static inline u32 rdlp(struct mv643xx_eth_private *mp, int offset)
> > {
> > - return readl(mp->base + offset);
> > + return readl_relaxed(mp->base + offset);
> > }
>
> I'd recommend not changing these in general, but introducing new 'rdl_relaxed()'
> and 'rdlp_relaxed()' etc variants that you use in the code that actually
> is performance sensitive, but use the normal non-relaxed versions by
> default.
>
> Then add a comment to each use of the relaxed accessors on how you know
> that it's safe for that caller. This usually is just needed for the xmit()
> function and for the interrupt handler.
Got your points and I do think it makes sense. But could we always use the
relaxed version to save some LoCs, although I have no mv643xx_eth platform
but I can confirm similar relaxed version changes in pxa168_eth is safe and
this is what we do in product's kernel.
Above is just my humble opinion, comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Jisheng
>
> > @@ -2642,10 +2642,10 @@ mv643xx_eth_conf_mbus_windows(struct mv643xx_eth_shared_private *msp,
> > int i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
> > - writel(0, base + WINDOW_BASE(i));
> > - writel(0, base + WINDOW_SIZE(i));
> > + writel_relaxed(0, base + WINDOW_BASE(i));
> > + writel_relaxed(0, base + WINDOW_SIZE(i));
> > if (i < 4)
> > - writel(0, base + WINDOW_REMAP_HIGH(i));
> > + writel_relaxed(0, base + WINDOW_REMAP_HIGH(i));
> > }
> >
> > win_enable = 0x3f;
>
> Configuring the mbus for instance is clearly not an operation in which
> performance matters at all, so better not touch that.
>
> > @@ -2674,8 +2675,8 @@ static void infer_hw_params(struct mv643xx_eth_shared_private *msp)
> > * [21:8], or a 16-bit coal limit in bits [25,21:7] of the
> > * SDMA config register.
> > */
> > - writel(0x02000000, msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG);
> > - if (readl(msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG) & 0x02000000)
> > + writel_relaxed(0x02000000, msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG);
> > + if (readl_relaxed(msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG) & 0x02000000)
> > msp->extended_rx_coal_limit = 1;
> > else
> > msp->extended_rx_coal_limit = 0;
>
>
> This also seems to be configuration, rather than in the packet rx/tx hotpath.
>
> Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: mv643xx_eth: use {readl|writel}_relaxed instead of readl/writel
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 20:19:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160513201955.256e5169@xhacker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3966837.tFk2PD8QFb@wuerfel>
Dear Arnd,
On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:09:43 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 13 May 2016 19:59:19 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > /* port register accessors **************************************************/
> > static inline u32 rdl(struct mv643xx_eth_private *mp, int offset)
> > {
> > - return readl(mp->shared->base + offset);
> > + return readl_relaxed(mp->shared->base + offset);
> > }
> >
> > static inline u32 rdlp(struct mv643xx_eth_private *mp, int offset)
> > {
> > - return readl(mp->base + offset);
> > + return readl_relaxed(mp->base + offset);
> > }
>
> I'd recommend not changing these in general, but introducing new 'rdl_relaxed()'
> and 'rdlp_relaxed()' etc variants that you use in the code that actually
> is performance sensitive, but use the normal non-relaxed versions by
> default.
>
> Then add a comment to each use of the relaxed accessors on how you know
> that it's safe for that caller. This usually is just needed for the xmit()
> function and for the interrupt handler.
Got your points and I do think it makes sense. But could we always use the
relaxed version to save some LoCs, although I have no mv643xx_eth platform
but I can confirm similar relaxed version changes in pxa168_eth is safe and
this is what we do in product's kernel.
Above is just my humble opinion, comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Jisheng
>
> > @@ -2642,10 +2642,10 @@ mv643xx_eth_conf_mbus_windows(struct mv643xx_eth_shared_private *msp,
> > int i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
> > - writel(0, base + WINDOW_BASE(i));
> > - writel(0, base + WINDOW_SIZE(i));
> > + writel_relaxed(0, base + WINDOW_BASE(i));
> > + writel_relaxed(0, base + WINDOW_SIZE(i));
> > if (i < 4)
> > - writel(0, base + WINDOW_REMAP_HIGH(i));
> > + writel_relaxed(0, base + WINDOW_REMAP_HIGH(i));
> > }
> >
> > win_enable = 0x3f;
>
> Configuring the mbus for instance is clearly not an operation in which
> performance matters at all, so better not touch that.
>
> > @@ -2674,8 +2675,8 @@ static void infer_hw_params(struct mv643xx_eth_shared_private *msp)
> > * [21:8], or a 16-bit coal limit in bits [25,21:7] of the
> > * SDMA config register.
> > */
> > - writel(0x02000000, msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG);
> > - if (readl(msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG) & 0x02000000)
> > + writel_relaxed(0x02000000, msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG);
> > + if (readl_relaxed(msp->base + 0x0400 + SDMA_CONFIG) & 0x02000000)
> > msp->extended_rx_coal_limit = 1;
> > else
> > msp->extended_rx_coal_limit = 0;
>
>
> This also seems to be configuration, rather than in the packet rx/tx hotpath.
>
> Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-13 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-13 11:59 [PATCH 0/2] net: mv643xx_eth: improve performance Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 11:59 ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 11:59 ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 11:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] net: mv643xx_eth: use {readl|writel}_relaxed instead of readl/writel Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 11:59 ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 11:59 ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 12:09 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-05-13 12:09 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-05-13 12:19 ` Jisheng Zhang [this message]
2016-05-13 12:19 ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 15:24 ` Andrew Lunn
2016-05-13 15:24 ` Andrew Lunn
2016-05-13 11:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] net: mv643xx_eth: use dma_wmb/rmb where appropriate Jisheng Zhang
2016-05-13 11:59 ` Jisheng Zhang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160513201955.256e5169@xhacker \
--to=jszhang@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.