From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com (Jeff Kirsher) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:26:07 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v8 0/7] netdev: intel: Eliminate duplicate barriers on weakly-ordered archs In-Reply-To: <92f46034-f041-05e4-56b7-01ae4cb04efc@codeaurora.org> References: <1522695990-31082-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <92f46034-f041-05e4-56b7-01ae4cb04efc@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <1522779967.4236.22.camel@intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 13:50 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > > > What do you think about this version? Did I miss any SMP > > > barriers? > > > > I would say we should probably just drop the whole set and start > > over. > > If we don't need the wmb() we are going to need to go through and > > clean up all of these paths and consider the barriers when updating > > the layout of the code. > > > > For example I have been thinking about it and in the case of x86 we > > are probably better off not bothering with the wmb() and > > writel_relaxed() and instead switch over to the smp_wmb() and > > writel() > > since in the case of a strongly ordered system like x86 or sparc > > this > > ends up translating out to a couple of compile barriers. > > > > I will also need time to reevaluate the Rx paths since dropping the > > wmb() may have other effects which I need to verify. > > Sounds good, I'll let you work on it. > > @Jeff Kirsher: can you drop this version from your development branch > until > Alex posts the next version? Already on it, I will work with Alex on any possible future versions of these patches. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: