On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann >> Sent: 23 February 2018 15:37 >> >> 32-bit architectures generally cannot use writeq(), so we now get a build >> failure for the lpfc driver: >> >> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c: In function 'lpfc_sli4_wq_put': >> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c:145:4: error: implicit declaration of function >> 'writeq'; did you mean >> 'writeb'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> >> Another problem here is that writing out actual data (unlike accessing >> mmio registers) means we must write the data with the same endianess >> that we have read from memory, but writeq() will perform byte swaps >> and add barriers inbetween accesses as we do for registers. >> >> Using memcpy_toio() should do the right thing here, using register >> sized stores with correct endianess conversion and barriers (i.e. none), >> but on some architectures might fall back to byte-size access. > ... > > Have you looked at the performance impact of this on x86? > Last time I looked memcpy_toio() aliased directly to memcpy(). > memcpy() is run-time patched between several different algorithms. > On recent Intel cpus memcpy() is implemented as 'rep movsb' relying > on the hardware to DTRT. > For uncached accesses (typical for io) the 'RT' has to be byte transfers. > So instead of the 8 byte transfers (on 64 bit) you get single bytes. > This won't be what is intended! > memcpy_toio() should probably use 'rep movsd' for the bulk of the transfer.
Maybe I'm wrong but it uses movsq on 64-bit and movsl on 32-bit. The side-effect I referred previously is about tails, i.e. unaligned bytes are transferred in portions like 7 on 64-bit will be 4 + 2 + 1, 5 = 4 + 1 etc Similar way on 32-bit. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko