On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> Realtime requirement is definitely a true requirement on ARM Linux.
>
> I once talked/worked with some guys who were using ARM for realtime
> system.
> The feasible approaches include:
> 1. Dual OS(RTOS + Linux): e.g. QNX+Linux XENOMAI+
Hi Geert,
On 2021/2/24 17:41, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Xiaofei,
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 12:46 PM Xiaofei Tan wrote:
Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
There are no function changes, but may speed up if interrupt happen
too often.
I'll bite: how much doe
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Regarding m68k, your an
Hi Xiaofei,
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 12:46 PM Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
> There are no function changes, but may speed up if interrupt happen
> too often.
I'll bite: how much does this speed up interrupt processing?
What's the typica
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > Regarding m68k, your analysis overlooks the timing issue. E.g. patch
> > 11/32 could be a problem because removing the irqsave would allow PDMA
> > transfers to be interrupted. Aside from the timing issues, I agree
> > with your ana
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, Xiaof
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2021/2/9 13:06, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Replac
x-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
>
> > On 2021/2/9 13:06, Finn Thain wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> On 2021/2/9 13:06, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI
> > > > > drivers. There are
...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
linux...@openeuler.org
Subject: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
for SCSI drivers
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
There are no function
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization for SCSI
> drivers
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> >
> > > -Original Message-
>
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao
m;
> > martin.peter...@oracle.com; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> > linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization for
> > SCSI
> > drive
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization for SCSI
> drivers
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually in m68k, I also saw its IR
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > TBH, that is why m68k is so confusing. irqs_disabled() on m68k
> > > > > should just reflect the sta
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> Actually in m68k, I also saw its IRQ entry disabled interrupts by
> ' move#0x2700,%sr /* disable intrs */'
>
> arch/m68k/include/asm/entry.h:
>
> .macro SAVE_ALL_SYS
> move#0x2700,%sr /* disabl
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no warning from m68k builds. That's because
> > > > > > > >
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > There is no warning from m68k builds. That's because
> > > > > > arch_irqs_disabled() returns true
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > > O
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > There is no warning from m68k builds. That's because
> > > > arch_irqs_disabled() returns true when the IPL is non-zero.
> > >
> > > So for m68k, the case is
> > >
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > &g
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > > > sonic_interrupt() uses an irq lock within an interrupt handler
> > > > > to avoid issues relating to this. This kind of locking may be
> > > > > needed in the drivers y
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > > > sonic_interrupt() uses an irq lock
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > sonic_interrupt() uses an irq lock within an interrupt handler to
> > > avoid issues relating to this. This kind of locking may be needed in
> > > the drivers you are trying to patch. Or it might not. Apparently,
> > > no-one has looked
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_
ernel@vger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Ba
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI
> > > > > drivers. There are no function changes, but ma
nux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Finn Thain [mailto:fth...@telegraphics.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesd
ger.kernel.org; linux...@openeuler.org;
> linux-m...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage
> optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> > > -Origi
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, tanxiaofei wrote:
> Hi Finn,
> Thanks for reviewing the patch set.
>
> On 2021/2/8 15:57, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> >
> > > Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
> > > There are no function changes, but may
t; linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > linux...@openeuler.org
> > Subject: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
> > for SCSI drivers
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> >
> > > Replace
Hi Finn,
Thanks for reviewing the patch set.
On 2021/2/8 15:57, Finn Thain wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
There are no function changes, but may speed up if interrupt happen too
often.
This change doesn't ne
eneuler.org
> Subject: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
> for SCSI drivers
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
>
> > Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
> > There are no function changes, but may speed
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
> There are no function changes, but may speed up if interrupt happen too
> often.
This change doesn't necessarily work on platforms that support nested
interrupts.
Were you able to
Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
There are no function changes, but may speed up if interrupt happen
too often.
Xiaofei Tan (32):
scsi: 53c700: Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ
scsi: ipr: Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard
36 matches
Mail list logo
