public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cache-l2x0: clean up aurora cache handling
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:10:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <12419854.Yj2kZEItoO@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4475865.jdxZMh688N@wuerfel>

On Wednesday 19 November 2014 16:06:31 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 November 2014 14:50:15 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 
> > If the operations complete synchronously (in other words, the L2 cache
> > doesn't accept another transaction until the cache operation has completed)
> > the spinlocks should not be necessary.
> > 
> > They're necessary for some of the ARM caches which allow cache operations
> > to run asynchronously (hence the wait stuff) but if you don't have the
> > wait stuff as you imply above, they can't be asynchronous.
> 
> I think the spinlock is still needed, it now only protects this sequence:
> 
>                 raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&l2x0_lock, flags);
>                 writel_relaxed(start, base + AURORA_RANGE_BASE_ADDR_REG);
>                 writel_relaxed(range_end - CACHE_LINE_SIZE, base + offset);
>                 writel_relaxed(0, base + AURORA_SYNC_REG);
>                 raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l2x0_lock, flags);
> 
> without the lock, two concurrent processes might start writing into
> AURORA_RANGE_BASE_ADDR_REG before the first one writes the operation
> register.

After taking another look, I do get your point. Yes, we only need the lock
across the first two operations, not for the third one, which can be done
outside of the lock. I'll change the patch accordingly.

	Arnd

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-19 15:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-19 14:40 [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cache-l2x0: clean up aurora cache handling Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-19 14:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: cache-l2x0: optimize aurora range operations Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-19 14:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cache-l2x0: clean up aurora cache handling Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-11-19 15:06   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-19 15:10     ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-09-08 14:53 [PATCH] ARM: avoid l2x0 build warning for CONFIG_OF=n Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-08 15:39 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-09-08 20:36   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-08 20:42     ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cache-l2x0: clean up aurora cache handling Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-11  8:54       ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-09-11  9:50         ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-11 10:07           ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-09-11 10:16         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-09-11 10:31           ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-09-11 10:08       ` Thomas Petazzoni

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=12419854.Yj2kZEItoO@wuerfel \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox