From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shawn.guo@linaro.org (Shawn Guo)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:15:59 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: fix cpu_relax() in case of doing dmb
In-Reply-To: <1345746686.4894.7.camel@computer5.home>
References: <1345647138-8815-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
 <20120823104356.GA13622@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20120823135806.GG24242@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
 <1345746686.4894.7.camel@computer5.home>
Message-ID: <20120824011557.GO24242@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 07:31:26PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 21:58 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:43:56AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:52:18PM +0100, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > index 99afa74..7cc67ce 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > @@ -80,7 +80,14 @@ extern void release_thread(struct task_struct *);
> > > >  unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
> > > >  
> > > >  #if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ == 6 || defined(CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_754327)
> > > > -#define cpu_relax()			smp_mb()
> > > > +#define cpu_relax()		do {					\
> > > > +					asm("nop");			\
> > > > +					asm("nop");			\
> > > > +					asm("nop");			\
> > > > +					asm("nop");			\
> > > > +					asm("nop");			\
> > > 
> > > Can you use nop() instead of the explicit asm?
> > 
> > Yes.  I just tried, and it works too.
> > 
> > > Also, I think we should try
> > > and use some methodology on deciding the number of nops to insert. Without
> > > having a full handle on the problem at the moment, it would seem that we
> > > need at least NR_CPUS worth (since the number of spinning secondaries is
> > > NR_CPUS-1 and they may execute their barriers in lock-step).
> > > 
> > I'm not sure we get something like that.  In my testing here, I need
> > at least 5 nops to get rid of the issue.
> 
> Doesn't A9 do dual issue?

Do you have some details about the issue to share?

> If so, the maths for your 4 core iMX6Q might
> match up with Will's hypothesis. You could try the theory by building
> say with CONFIG_NR_CPUS == 3.
> 
I'm still not quite sure about the hypothesis, but I assume you are
asking if 3 NOPs will fix the issue.  If so, the answer is NO.
I increase the number of NOP incrementally starting from 1, and the
issue remains until we have 5 NOPs in there.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn