; dan.j.willi...@intel.com;
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Li Yang-R58472
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:47:27AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hi Iris,
I'm convinced that smp_rmb
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:47:27AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hi Iris,
I'm convinced that smp_rmb() is needed when removing the spinlock. As
noted, Documentation/memory-barriers.txt says that stores on one CPU can be
observed by another CPU in a different order.
Previously, there was
: vinod.k...@intel.com; dan.j.willi...@intel.com;
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Li Yang-R58472
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:57:47AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hello Ira
-B29237; vinod.k...@intel.com; dan.j.willi...@intel.com;
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:19:05AM +, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC
degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:19:05AM +, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by
optimizing spinlock use.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:12:25AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hi Ira,
Thanks
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:19:05AM +, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:12:25AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hi Ira,
Thanks for your review.
After second thought
On 11/28/2011 09:19 PM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:12:25AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hi Ira,
Thanks for your review.
After second thought, I think your scenario may
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ira W. Snyder i...@ovro.caltech.edu wrote:
I believe that you are correct, for powerpc. However, anything outside
of arch/powerpc shouldn't assume it only runs on powerpc. I wouldn't be
surprised to see fsldma running on an iMX someday (ARM processor).
I
; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:55:05PM +0800, b29...@freescale.com wrote:
From: Forrest Shi b29...@freescale.com
dma status check
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:12:25AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hi Ira,
Thanks for your review.
After second thought, I think your scenario may not occur.
Because the cookie 20 we query
...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:12:25AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
Hi Ira,
Thanks for your review.
After second thought, I think your scenario may not occur.
Because the cookie 20 we query must
-kernel.org;
vinod.k...@intel.com; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] fsldma: fix performance degradation by optimizing
spinlock use.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:55:05PM +0800, b29...@freescale.com wrote:
From: Forrest Shi b29...@freescale.com
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:55:05PM +0800, b29...@freescale.com wrote:
From: Forrest Shi b29...@freescale.com
dma status check function fsl_tx_status is heavily called in
a tight loop and the desc lock in fsl_tx_status contended by
the dma status update function. this caused the
13 matches
Mail list logo
