From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753768AbbKBNJB (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:09:01 -0500 Received: from mail-am1on0081.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.112.81]:62624 "EHLO emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753359AbbKBNI6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:08:58 -0500 From: Noam Camus To: Vineet Gupta , "linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org" CC: Gil Fruchter , Peter Zijlstra , "Tal Zilcer" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Chris Metcalf Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 14/20] ARC: [plat-eznps] Use dedicated SMP barriers Thread-Topic: [PATCH v1 14/20] ARC: [plat-eznps] Use dedicated SMP barriers Thread-Index: AQHRE98Pzoubne8OUUOi35mZQubKfZ6IsQdw Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:08:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1446297327-16298-1-git-send-email-noamc@ezchip.com> <1446297327-16298-15-git-send-email-noamc@ezchip.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=noamc@ezchip.com; x-originating-ip: [212.179.42.66] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;DB5PR02MB0776;5:cUnHW9ukW6FaLgQNYfPdG9QEYlTuf5wNZvfiSyK9UiCADsQgaBnjrAPQku75lhHnMDTCoLpKZrubOJFLRwbKx4wrluBNu1suiXOa5WDH18XuJs5d9km43mO/RlUxoRqlLiQrDFGVqq3w/R4FVOwurg==;24:DjilYkNWaClq8brSh1f+1khQygzKh+0pivpaNtx6a6IyVIhs1SxZLTlHdn9jBMK32mBCS08d3GQarq+gXBd9bOen7eCMbkjf+GSXlOoy+uk=;20:cNPZZXWXbvCKGT2S/UyWsi/qtSqJuEzxeVA8bH6C1vOaAv6sHRAk5KMPeujLYdWEKo+YKi9807fJpZK5OtH6Xg== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB5PR02MB0776; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(520078)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001);SRVR:DB5PR02MB0776;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB5PR02MB0776; x-forefront-prvs: 0748FF9A04 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(189002)(199003)(55674003)(377454003)(106356001)(106116001)(105586002)(87936001)(74316001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(10400500002)(76176999)(54356999)(50986999)(33656002)(5008740100001)(66066001)(92566002)(97736004)(86362001)(102836002)(5007970100001)(77096005)(81156007)(2900100001)(101416001)(189998001)(5001960100002)(107886002)(76576001)(2950100001)(5004730100002)(2501003)(5003600100002)(122556002)(5002640100001)(40100003)(5001770100001)(4001430100002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:DB5PR02MB0776;H:DB5PR02MB1141.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ezchip.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Nov 2015 13:08:55.6016 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fc16e0a-3cd3-4092-8b2f-0a42cff122c3 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5PR02MB0776 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Vineet Gupta [mailto:Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:03 AM > Do u need this even for mandatory barriers whose semantics are not related to SMP at all ? I think you need them only for smb_* Yes I do. For example it is used to proceed access to our Global Interrupt Manager (GIM) when we want to make sure that driver of some device committed all read/writes before we are acknowledging the GIM. We are not falling to use "sync" since we prefer to have HW thread schedule in the meantime we wait for load/store to be done. - Noam From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: noamc@ezchip.com (Noam Camus) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:08:55 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v1 14/20] ARC: [plat-eznps] Use dedicated SMP barriers In-Reply-To: References: <1446297327-16298-1-git-send-email-noamc@ezchip.com> <1446297327-16298-15-git-send-email-noamc@ezchip.com> List-ID: Message-ID: To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org From: Vineet Gupta [mailto:Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:03 AM > Do u need this even for mandatory barriers whose semantics are not related to SMP at all ? I think you need them only for smb_* Yes I do. For example it is used to proceed access to our Global Interrupt Manager (GIM) when we want to make sure that driver of some device committed all read/writes before we are acknowledging the GIM. We are not falling to use "sync" since we prefer to have HW thread schedule in the meantime we wait for load/store to be done. - Noam