From: jszhang@marvell.com (Jisheng Zhang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_global_timer: Always use {readl|writel}_relaxed
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:59:48 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151113175948.69f610e9@xhacker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10575502.sxpiT76bOp@wuerfel>
Dear Arnd,
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:28:01 +0100
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Friday 13 November 2015 16:40:25 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:34:38 +0800
> > Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This driver use both readl/writel and their relaxed version, this patch
> > > tries to unify the io accesses.
> >
> > I'm sorry. This is the version I'd like to send for review and merge. Can you
> > please kindly have a review?
>
> I would prefer to use write_relaxed() as sparingly as we can, it is too
> hard to verify each case to ensure that we don't have to watch out
> for ordering or locking issues.
>
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > > index a2cb6fa..84a5a5d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> > > @@ -99,27 +99,27 @@ static void gt_compare_set(unsigned long delta, int periodic)
> > >
> > > counter += delta;
> > > ctrl = GT_CONTROL_TIMER_ENABLE;
> > > - writel(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > - writel(lower_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP0);
> > > - writel(upper_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP1);
> > > + writel_relaxed(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > + writel_relaxed(lower_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP0);
> > > + writel_relaxed(upper_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP1);
> > >
> > > if (periodic) {
> > > - writel(delta, gt_base + GT_AUTO_INC);
> > > + writel_relaxed(delta, gt_base + GT_AUTO_INC);
> > > ctrl |= GT_CONTROL_AUTO_INC;
> > > }
> > >
> > > ctrl |= GT_CONTROL_COMP_ENABLE | GT_CONTROL_IRQ_ENABLE;
> > > - writel(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > + writel_relaxed(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > }
>
> This seems fine. Do you have any performance numbers to show how much
> we save per call on a platform you care about, and how often it is
> called for a typical workload?
To be honest, all my platforms don't make use of global timer for clockevent,
we use dw_apb_timer and twd or arch_timer instead, but one performance impact
I saw in our case can also apply for the case with global timer as clokevent:
there are 500-1000 short sleeps, yes not good userspace behavior, so we
program clockevent device 500-1000 times/s. If the system is powered by CA9
with outer L2 cache, the writel will contend for l2x0_lock for 500-1000 times/s.
Then the L2 cache maintenance from other device driver have more chance to
spinning at the l2x0_lock, so other device driver performance is impacted.
Thanks,
Jisheng
>
> I see that _gt_counter_read() already uses readl_relaxed(), and it
> seems to be a much bigger win there, as we read the clock more
> often than we write the comparator, so the person who did that
> probably thought that this one wasn't important enough. Can you
> add an explanation in the changelog why you think that was a
> mistake?
>
> Unifying the accessors across a driver is not enough of a reason
> I think.
>
> > > static int gt_clockevent_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long ctrl;
> > >
> > > - ctrl = readl(gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > + ctrl = readl_relaxed(gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > ctrl &= ~(GT_CONTROL_COMP_ENABLE | GT_CONTROL_IRQ_ENABLE |
> > > GT_CONTROL_AUTO_INC);
> > > - writel(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > + writel_relaxed(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
>
> This is certainly not performance critical, better leave it using
> the standard accessors.
>
> > > @@ -212,11 +212,11 @@ static u64 notrace gt_sched_clock_read(void)
> > >
> > > static void __init gt_clocksource_init(void)
> > > {
> > > - writel(0, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > - writel(0, gt_base + GT_COUNTER0);
> > > - writel(0, gt_base + GT_COUNTER1);
> > > + writel_relaxed(0, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > + writel_relaxed(0, gt_base + GT_COUNTER0);
> > > + writel_relaxed(0, gt_base + GT_COUNTER1);
> > > /* enables timer on all the cores */
> > > - writel(GT_CONTROL_TIMER_ENABLE, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > > + writel_relaxed(GT_CONTROL_TIMER_ENABLE, gt_base + GT_CONTROL);
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_CLKSRC_ARM_GLOBAL_TIMER_SCHED_CLOCK
> > > sched_clock_register(gt_sched_clock_read, 64, gt_clk_rate);
> >
> >
>
> Same here.
>
> Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-13 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-13 8:34 [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_global_timer: Always use {readl|writel}_relaxed Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-13 8:40 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-13 9:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-13 9:59 ` Jisheng Zhang [this message]
2015-11-13 10:33 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-13 12:20 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-13 12:37 ` Arnd Bergmann
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=20151113175948.69f610e9@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).