From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify pci_iomap() usage for MMIO-only devices
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709181323260.16478@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43e72e890709181312sf2b421cn49be3389b3786a2a@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> An extra branch is created on MMIO-only devices on read/writes on the
> IO_COND macro using this interface -- or is this optimized out?
Umm. Does anybody actually have any performance numbers?
The thing is, those things are *cheap* compared to the IO. And any
high-performance device will be using DMA for the real IO, so we're not
generally even talking about any performance-critical stuff.
Quite frankly, if performance is a _real_ reason to avoid
ioread*/iowrite*, I'll happily accept read*/write*, but it would be needed
to be backed up by real numbers. Can you even measure it?
I would definitely *not* encourage the notion that people should use
readl/writel because of "performance reasons". That may be valid for some
fbcon driver, but those drivers go to other extremes (ie they use
"__raw_writel()" etc, and MTRR's etc).
If you don't use write-combining memory regions, the performance argument
is not really valid.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-18 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-17 20:22 [PATCH] Clarify pci_iomap() usage for MMIO-only devices Luis R. Rodriguez
2007-09-18 10:34 ` Alan Cox
2007-09-18 18:46 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2007-09-18 19:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-09-18 19:07 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2007-09-18 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-09-18 20:12 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2007-09-18 20:30 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2007-09-18 21:02 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2007-09-18 21:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-09-18 21:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-09-18 21:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-09-18 22:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-09-18 22:21 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-09-18 22:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-09-18 20:21 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-09-18 22:20 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-09-18 23:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-09-18 23:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-09-18 22:16 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-09-18 22:25 ` Alan Cox
2007-09-19 15:07 ` Nick Kossifidis
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=alpine.LFD.0.999.0709181323260.16478@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=mcgrof@gmail.com \
/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