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 Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:47:27AM +, Shi Xuelin-B29237 wrote:
> Hi Iris,
>
> >I
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,
ech.edu]
Sent: 2011年12月1日 1:08
To: Shi Xuelin-B29237
Cc: 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 09:5
2011年11月30日 1:26
> To: Li Yang-R58472
> Cc: Shi Xuelin-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 T
Shi Xuelin-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:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ira W. Snyder 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 certainly would. The i
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
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,
&
...@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
> 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 yo
To: Shi Xuelin-B29237
> Cc: dan.j.willi...@intel.com; Li Yang-R58472; z...@zh-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
@zh-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
>
> dma
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:55:05PM +0800, b29...@freescale.com wrote:
> From: Forrest Shi
>
> 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 dma performance
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
