From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org,
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [linux-pm] freezer: should barriers be smp ?
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:33:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikaymG-5-YoTnG2SPJCnBtXPpfHBQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110415162938.GA11454@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:29, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > > I believe the code is correct as is.
>> >
>> > that isnt what the code / documentation says. unless i'm reading them
>> > wrong, both seem to indicate that the proposed patch is what we
>> > actually want.
>>
>> The existing code is correct but it isn't optimal.
>>
>> wmb() and rmb() are heavy-duty operations, and you don't want to call
>> them when they aren't needed. That's exactly what smp_wmb() and
>> smp_rmb() are for -- they call wmb() and rmb(), but only in SMP
>> kernels.
>>
>> Unless you need to synchronize with another processor (not necessarily
>> a CPU, it could be something embedded within a device), you should
>> always use smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() rather than wmb() and rmb().
>
> Maybe; but this code is not performance critical and I believe being
> obvious here is better...
isnt it though ? especially when we talk about suspending/resuming on
embedded systems to get more savings over just cpu idle ? we want
that latency to be as low as possible.
-mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-15 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-13 6:14 freezer: should barriers be smp ? Mike Frysinger
2011-04-13 20:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-13 21:02 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-04-13 21:05 ` Pavel Machek
2011-04-13 21:11 ` [uclinux-dist-devel] " Mike Frysinger
2011-04-13 21:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-13 22:11 ` [linux-pm] " Alan Stern
2011-04-13 22:34 ` [linux-pm] [uclinux-dist-devel] freezer: should barriers be smp? Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-14 14:55 ` Alan Stern
2011-04-14 22:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-15 14:32 ` Alan Stern
2011-04-13 22:22 ` [uclinux-dist-devel] freezer: should barriers be smp ? Mike Frysinger
2011-04-13 22:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-13 22:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-13 22:57 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-04-13 23:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-14 15:13 ` [linux-pm] " Alan Stern
2011-04-14 22:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-13 22:04 ` [linux-pm] [uclinux-dist-devel] " Alan Stern
2011-04-15 16:29 ` Pavel Machek
2011-04-15 16:33 ` Mike Frysinger [this message]
2011-04-15 16:57 ` [uclinux-dist-devel] [linux-pm] " Pavel Machek
2011-04-15 23:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-15 23:24 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-04-15 23:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=BANLkTikaymG-5-YoTnG2SPJCnBtXPpfHBQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vapier@gentoo.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).