public inbox for linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: GIC: Convert GIC library to use the IO relaxed operations
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:50:17 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D9AB4A1.9050508@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301930948.15819.52.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 4/4/2011 8:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 10:32 +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> The GIC register accesses today make use of readl()/writel()
>> which prove to be very expensive when used along with mandatory
>> barriers. This mandatory barriers also introduces an un-necessary
>> and expensive l2x0_sync() operation. On Cortex-A9 MP cores, GIC
>> IO accesses from CPU are direct and doesn't go through L2X0 write
>> buffer.
>>
>> Also since a DSB does not guarantee that the device state has
>> been changed, a read back from the device is introduced wherever
>> necessary.
> ...
>> @@ -98,7 +98,8 @@ static void gic_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>          u32 mask = 1<<  (d->irq % 32);
>>
>>          spin_lock(&irq_controller_lock);
>> -       writel(mask, gic_dist_base(d) + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + (gic_irq(d) / 32) * 4);
>> +       writel_relaxed(mask, gic_dist_base(d) + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + (gic_irq(d) / 32) * 4);
>> +       readl_relaxed(gic_dist_base(d) + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + (gic_irq(d) / 32) * 4);
>>          if (gic_arch_extn.irq_mask)
>>                  gic_arch_extn.irq_mask(d);
>>          spin_unlock(&irq_controller_lock);
>>
>
> Talking to the hardware people, a readl back would guarantee that the
> GIC state has changed but you can still get spurious interrupts because
> of the signal propagation from the GIC to the CPU. That's difficult to
> reliably sort out in software as we don't know the hardware delays, so
> we'll have to cope with spurious interrupts (unlikely though).
>
> A better sequence would be something like below (but still no
> guarantees):
>
> 	STR	[Device]
> 	LDR	[Device]
> 	DSB
> 	ISB
>
> (the ISB is needed in case some instructions already in the pipeline
> sampled the state of the interrupt signal)
>
> But I'm more in favour of not even bothering with an additional
> readl_relaxed, we simply cope with a very rare spurious interrupt. In a
> virtualised environment accesses to the GIC distributor are trapped
> making things slower.
>
Ok. Thanks for addition information.
Will drop readl_relaxed() then.

Regards
Santosh

      reply	other threads:[~2011-04-05  6:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-01  9:32 [PATCH v2] ARM: GIC: Convert GIC library to use the IO relaxed operations Santosh Shilimkar
2011-04-04 15:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-04-05  6:20   ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]

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=4D9AB4A1.9050508@ti.com \
    --to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
    --cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.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