From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:02:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] SMMUv3 CMD_SYNC optimisation In-Reply-To: <20171013190521.GD30572@arm.com> References: <20171013190521.GD30572@arm.com> Message-ID: <20171016150208.GA10500@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 08:05:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 02:44:24PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > Since Nate reported a reasonable performance boost from the out-of-line > > MSI polling in v1 [1], I've now implemented the equivalent for cons > > polling as well - that has been boot-tested on D05 with some trivial I/O > > and at least doesn't seem to lock up or explode. There's also a little > > cosmetic tweaking to make the patches a bit cleaner as a series. > > > > Robin. > > > > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/iommu at lists.linux-foundation.org/msg19657.html > > > > Robin Murphy (5): > > iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Specialise CMD_SYNC handling > > iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Forget about cmdq-sync interrupt > > iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Use CMD_SYNC completion interrupt > > iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Poll for CMD_SYNC outside cmdq lock > > iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Use burst-polling for sync completion > > What's this final mythical patch about? I don't see it in the series. > > Anyway, the first two patches look fine to me, but this doesn't apply > on top of my iommu/devel branch so they will need rebasing. No idea what I was doing wrong on Friday, but the first two patches apply cleanly now, so I'll push them out in a bit. Sorry for the noise, Will