Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Nov 2015 20:20:01 +0800 | From | Jisheng Zhang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/arm_global_timer: Always use {readl|writel}_relaxed |
| |
Dear Arnd,
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:33:12 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 13 November 2015 17:59:48 Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:28:01 +0100 > > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 13 November 2015 16:40:25 Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:34:38 +0800 > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c > > > > > index a2cb6fa..84a5a5d 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c > > > > > @@ -99,27 +99,27 @@ static void gt_compare_set(unsigned long delta, int periodic) > > > > > > > > > > counter += delta; > > > > > ctrl = GT_CONTROL_TIMER_ENABLE; > > > > > - writel(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL); > > > > > - writel(lower_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP0); > > > > > - writel(upper_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP1); > > > > > + writel_relaxed(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL); > > > > > + writel_relaxed(lower_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP0); > > > > > + writel_relaxed(upper_32_bits(counter), gt_base + GT_COMP1); > > > > > > > > > > if (periodic) { > > > > > - writel(delta, gt_base + GT_AUTO_INC); > > > > > + writel_relaxed(delta, gt_base + GT_AUTO_INC); > > > > > ctrl |= GT_CONTROL_AUTO_INC; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > ctrl |= GT_CONTROL_COMP_ENABLE | GT_CONTROL_IRQ_ENABLE; > > > > > - writel(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL); > > > > > + writel_relaxed(ctrl, gt_base + GT_CONTROL); > > > > > } > > > > > > This seems fine. Do you have any performance numbers to show how much > > > we save per call on a platform you care about, and how often it is > > > called for a typical workload? > > > > To be honest, all my platforms don't make use of global timer for clockevent, > > we use dw_apb_timer and twd or arch_timer instead, but one performance impact > > I saw in our case can also apply for the case with global timer as clokevent: > > > > there are 500-1000 short sleeps, yes not good userspace behavior, so we > > program clockevent device 500-1000 times/s. If the system is powered by CA9 > > with outer L2 cache, the writel will contend for l2x0_lock for 500-1000 times/s. > > Then the L2 cache maintenance from other device driver have more chance to > > spinning at the l2x0_lock, so other device driver performance is impacted. > > Just to make sure I get this right: which outer cache implementation do you > use in this case? Most Cortex-A9 use pl310, which does not require l2x0_lock
PL310
> for outer_cache.sync(). The Aurora outer cache sync has a different method > and also doesn't use l2x0_lock. Finally, tauros3 doesn't need a cache sync > at all. > > Did you look at an older kernel version? We used to do a loop in the
oops, yes. The kernel version in product still needs the spinlock in sync. I didn't check the L2 cache code for about 1 year, sorry for that. If we upgrade to newer kernel version, yes, the bit performance bottleneck -- spinlock contention won't exist anymore. Thanks for pointing out this.
But I think we may still see trivial system performance improvement in 500-1000 times/s of clockevent programming case due to the mb() in writel.
Thanks, Jisheng
> Aurora cache sync operation until I fixed that, so it should be a bit > faster now. It will still require doing the actual sync, but at least > there should not be any lock contention these days. > > Arnd
| |