From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:04:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:9809 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27011361AbbAZMEWn9njT (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:04:22 +0100 Received: from KLMAIL01.kl.imgtec.org (unknown [192.168.5.35]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 1E8F97CBE0B07; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org (192.168.152.62) by KLMAIL01.kl.imgtec.org (192.168.5.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:17 +0000 Received: from [192.168.154.96] (192.168.154.96) by LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org (192.168.152.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:16 +0000 Message-ID: <54C62D40.3040906@imgtec.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:16 +0000 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Hogan , CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] MIPS: HTW: Prevent accidental HTW start due to nested htw_{start,stop} References: <1422265236-29290-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <1422265236-29290-3-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <54C626CC.2070104@imgtec.com> <54C62941.6060604@imgtec.com> <54C62D26.80907@imgtec.com> In-Reply-To: <54C62D26.80907@imgtec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.96] Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 45482 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: Markos.Chandras@imgtec.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 01/26/2015 12:03 PM, James Hogan wrote: > On 26/01/15 11:47, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 01/26/2015 11:36 AM, James Hogan wrote: >> >>> >>>> + raw_current_cpu_data.htw_seq++; \ >>> >>> not "if (!raw_current_cpu_data.htw_seq++)) {"? >> Why? >> >> on _stop() calls you just increment it. The _start() will do the right >> thing then. >> >> I think what you suggest it to move the if() condition from the _start() >> to _stop(). > > I just mean you only need to disable htw the first time its called. I > guess the extra branch every time could be worse than the extra disable > and ehb when nesting does occur, so its probably premature optimisation. > > Up to you. > > Cheers > James > good idea i will change it. -- markos From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:9809 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27011361AbbAZMEWn9njT (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:04:22 +0100 Message-ID: <54C62D40.3040906@imgtec.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:16 +0000 From: Markos Chandras MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] MIPS: HTW: Prevent accidental HTW start due to nested htw_{start,stop} References: <1422265236-29290-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <1422265236-29290-3-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <54C626CC.2070104@imgtec.com> <54C62941.6060604@imgtec.com> <54C62D26.80907@imgtec.com> In-Reply-To: <54C62D26.80907@imgtec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: James Hogan , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20150126120416.stl2a_tDlWSeG2yWVAUUd7tSvHI_tnUs4LgrC_cc-S0@z> On 01/26/2015 12:03 PM, James Hogan wrote: > On 26/01/15 11:47, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 01/26/2015 11:36 AM, James Hogan wrote: >> >>> >>>> + raw_current_cpu_data.htw_seq++; \ >>> >>> not "if (!raw_current_cpu_data.htw_seq++)) {"? >> Why? >> >> on _stop() calls you just increment it. The _start() will do the right >> thing then. >> >> I think what you suggest it to move the if() condition from the _start() >> to _stop(). > > I just mean you only need to disable htw the first time its called. I > guess the extra branch every time could be worse than the extra disable > and ehb when nesting does occur, so its probably premature optimisation. > > Up to you. > > Cheers > James > good idea i will change it. -- markos