From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864BFC282CD for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 02:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468EC214DA for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 02:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sifive.com header.i=@sifive.com header.b="VUUg0A8N" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727145AbfA2CnQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:43:16 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com ([209.85.214.193]:34138 "EHLO mail-pl1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726895AbfA2CnQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:43:16 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id w4so8688293plz.1 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:43:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sifive.com; s=google; h=date:subject:in-reply-to:cc:from:to:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uGhtJew8V8IVHDP2ojAqAmVpvsOfI7pNzmTu2ZaYKlM=; b=VUUg0A8NR6sreK3e89AzR3MRjZmDYVrBSC3Ev/yv7XblYqn1mrnHgTgGbWMnPAedDe aNaM+buru/mn59VBgtQ/K1Mx8KqBGHiFQcB4qw/vsiimI1hvwR28+z8oq5kDSlosXV9S fd5wMUXtMnOWlocr8Sb8/ara9hKp2u0O5h7XRmvurY7n7shL+1ttzW8qRwf4tpxM5HOD jxJiFAfC4kMSTSKgc+NBLYKAfvt73UO2DVJ1Nw4jdi61jZIRgda5aODo99tsHG8qPT58 6uf2H8p+V3A7+NZK8b0gDVNmVgeilFTpy/0Z5Ao6P2zXnkKsJSXvkezfRaLR8kPE5+1r ApoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:subject:in-reply-to:cc:from:to:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uGhtJew8V8IVHDP2ojAqAmVpvsOfI7pNzmTu2ZaYKlM=; b=L/+By6jsDb4CuwiFSPGZ8ooEKJB9u75oqZGN4ZWqT6Xe20D2S1WViRu9Wc8PTjifgx rosSn2UalWi8VtRhbM0sRhby1ZpsocRzOXQPCb7HU/TbGFBg/14qJIvhDed1cerjcwVt uPhqEQHEYpPIOWGFCVjhKpQDUF9gTlF2rPMpAcQVFBVsHdyCT+bUq40iaR3ZZ752DGdG fygThlHuQaJGwOOptFew6GVODBW6T5c/Prb5ungh6h39KOE14rVuebBg9qq+r+UpSVO2 Tc8G2J82FwNSMHFACVnzobFzPUgLv2fKLhqyHlXk3nBG1DMQkPSAlwIiYR4rfGD4ozpr p92w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdwOd4VtrQMppG40DT6v+ieNeVbX0aWZ5VyV58KRQw27xU+ug5I ju5TIt8mAHfi/vUfM0vGNyvT0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6vEkg3CDRHzD9i8Iv2CCJoXpReVKMTqvCc6dGPdTqxknCrfOex4np4naBDvGxLtZRmNLf5EQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:42e4:: with SMTP id h91mr24693197pld.18.1548729795749; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:43:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([12.206.222.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x127sm54610610pfd.156.2019.01.28.18.43.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:43:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:43:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:43:08 PST (-0800) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] riscv: set HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS In-Reply-To: CC: bjorn.topel@gmail.com, Christoph Hellwig , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, davidlee@sifive.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org From: Palmer Dabbelt To: Jim Wilson Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:33:50 PST (-0800), Jim Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:21 PM Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> Jim, would you be opposed to something like this? > > This looks OK to me. OK, thanks. I'll send some patches around :) > >> + builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_load_cost", >> + riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access ? 1024 : 1); >> + builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_store_cost", >> + riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access ? 1024 : 1); > > It would be nice to have a better way to compute these values, maybe > an extra field in the tune structure, but we can always worry about > that later when we need it. I agree. I just went and designed the external interface first and hid the ugliness here. The internal interfaces are easier to change :)