From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:01:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v8 6/9] drivers: perf: hisi: Add support for Hisilicon Djtag driver In-Reply-To: <20170614104230.GC6085@leverpostej> References: <1495457312-237127-1-git-send-email-zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com> <20170608163519.GA19643@leverpostej> <8666a0fa-126d-e4a3-ac4b-7962f5d79942@huawei.com> <20170609143050.GM13955@arm.com> <0fbf57f0-9ff7-4fd4-07c7-c5e86028a7d2@huawei.com> <20170614100658.GE16190@arm.com> <20170614104230.GC6085@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20170614110141.GL16190@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:42:30AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:06:58AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > Apologies, I misunderstood your algorithm (I thought step (a) was on one CPU > > and step (b) was on another). Still, I don't understand the need for the > > timeout. If you instead read back the flag immediately, wouldn't it still > > work? e.g. > > > > > > lock: > > Readl_relaxed flag > > if (locked) > > goto lock; > > > > Writel_relaxed unique ID to flag > > Readl flag > > if (locked by somebody else) > > goto lock; > > > > > > > > unlock: > > Writel unlocked value to flag > > > > > > Given that we're dealing with iomem, I think it will work, but I could be > > missing something obvious. > > Don't we have the race below where both threads can enter the critical > section? > > // flag f initial zero (unlocked) > > // t1, flag 1 // t2, flag 2 > readl(f); // reads 0 l = readl(f); // reads 0 > > > > writel(1, f); > readl(f); // reads 1 > > writel(2, f); > readl(f) // reads 2 > > > Urgh, yeah, of course and *that's* what the udelay is trying to avoid, by "ensuring" that the time and subsequent write propagation is all over before we re-read the flag. John -- how much space do you have on this device? Do you have, e.g. a byte for each CPU? Will