From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Eugene Surovegin <ebs@ebshome.net>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, sr@denx.de, dzu@denx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [PPC 4xx] L2-cache synchronization for ppc44x
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:52:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1200102775.6896.97.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080111223831.GA2947@gate.ebshome.net>
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 14:38 -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:05:35AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > > The s/w synchronization algorithms proposed in my patches has no LL PLB
> > > > limitations as opposed to h/w snooping, but, probably, this is not the best
> > > > way of how it might be implemented. Even though with these patches the h/w
> > > > accelerated RAID starts to operate correctly (with L2-cache enabled) there is
> > > > a performance degradation (induced by loops in the L2-cache synchronization
> > > > routines) observed in the most cases. So, as a result, there is no benefit
> > > > from using L2-cache for these, RAID, cases at all.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for explanation, Yuri. I'd never imagine they were so
> > > stupid to make new chips with such behaviour.
> >
> > Indeed. Now the question is do we want to make that configurable by the
> > platform so it can select whether to enable snooping, or use this
> > mechanism (in which case we can disable snooping on the L2) ?
>
> I don't think we should panish platforms with sane L2 caches, because
> there are some brain-dead ones.
I agree, which is why I'm thinking about making it some kind of explicit
thing that a give platform would call from it's setup_arch() callbacks
to turn on manual L2 sycnhronization.
> > Another option would be to make the dma_ops smart enough to know whether
> > a given device is on the snooped portion of the bus, which would be
> > easier to do after I merge 32 and 64 bits DMA ops, so we get the ability
> > to change the dma-ops per bus or per device even.
> >
> > What do you guys think ?
>
> I like the idea of having smart DMA routines with different
> per-bus/device behaviour.
That would be longer term. When I merge the dma ops, I'll look into a
way to provide 44x specific DMA ops that handle that case, and then a
way for devices to be tagged (maybe via the device-tree) on whether they
are on an L2 coherent or non-L2 coherent segment of the bus.
Cheers,
Ben.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-12 1:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-06 22:40 [PATCH 0/2] [PPC 4xx] L2-cache synchronization for ppc44x Yuri Tikhonov
2007-11-28 19:50 ` Eugene Surovegin
2008-01-11 15:24 ` Yuri Tikhonov
2008-01-11 17:41 ` Eugene Surovegin
2008-01-11 22:05 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-01-11 22:38 ` Eugene Surovegin
2008-01-12 1:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [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=1200102775.6896.97.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dzu@denx.de \
--cc=ebs@ebshome.net \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=sr@denx.de \
/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).