On 2017/6/26 21:29, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>
>
> On 2017/6/21 17:08, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:28:23AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>> On 2017/6/20 19:35, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 20/06/17 12:04, Zhen Lei wrote:
> This function is protected by
On 2017/6/21 17:08, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:28:23AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2017/6/20 19:35, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 20/06/17 12:04, Zhen Lei wrote:
This function is protected by spinlock, and the latter will do memory
barrier implicitly. So
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:28:23AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2017/6/20 19:35, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 20/06/17 12:04, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> This function is protected by spinlock, and the latter will do memory
> >> barrier implicitly. So that we can safely use writel_relaxed. In
On 2017/6/20 19:35, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 20/06/17 12:04, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> This function is protected by spinlock, and the latter will do memory
>> barrier implicitly. So that we can safely use writel_relaxed. In fact, the
>> dmb operation will lengthen the time protected by lock, which
On 20/06/17 12:04, Zhen Lei wrote:
> This function is protected by spinlock, and the latter will do memory
> barrier implicitly. So that we can safely use writel_relaxed. In fact, the
> dmb operation will lengthen the time protected by lock, which indirectly
> increase the locking confliction in
This function is protected by spinlock, and the latter will do memory
barrier implicitly. So that we can safely use writel_relaxed. In fact, the
dmb operation will lengthen the time protected by lock, which indirectly
increase the locking confliction in the stress scene.
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei
