On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:22:20AM +0300, saeed bishara wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:34:48PM +0300, saeed bishara wrote:
Russell,
I'm curious about the correctness of this patch for systems with
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:34:48PM +0300, saeed bishara wrote:
Russell,
I'm curious about the correctness of this patch for systems with
outer cache. shouldn't the dsb be issued before the outer cache
On 24 June 2011 10:58, Per Forlin per.for...@linaro.org wrote:
On 23 June 2011 15:37, Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:26:27AM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
Here are the results.
It looks like this patch is either a no-op or slightly worse. As
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:42:52AM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
Conclusion:
Working with mmc the relative cost of DSB is almost none. There seems
to be slightly higher number for mmc blocking requests with the DSB
patch compared to not having it.
These figures suggest that dsb is comparitively
+static inline void __dma_sync(void)
+{
+ dsb();
+}
+
/*
* Return whether the given device DMA address mask can be supported
* properly. For example, if your device can only drive the low 24-bits
@@ -378,6 +383,7 @@ static inline dma_addr_t dma_map_single(struct device
*dev,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:34:48PM +0300, saeed bishara wrote:
Russell,
I'm curious about the correctness of this patch for systems with
outer cache. shouldn't the dsb be issued before the outer cache
maintenance?
Maybe we should do two passes over SG lists then - one for the inner and
@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; Robert Fekete
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] mmc: use nonblock mmc requests to minimize latency
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
The next thing to think about in DMA-land is whether we should
On 23 June 2011 15:37, Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:26:27AM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
Here are the results.
It looks like this patch is either a no-op or slightly worse. As
people have been telling me that dsb is rather expensive, and this
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:26:27AM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
Here are the results.
It looks like this patch is either a no-op or slightly worse. As
people have been telling me that dsb is rather expensive, and this
patch results in less dsbs, I'm finding these results hard to believe.
It seems
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17:26PM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
How significant is the cache maintenance over head?
Per,
Can you measure how much difference this has before and after your
patch set please? This moves the dsb() out of the individual cache
maintanence functions, such that we will
On 21 June 2011 09:53, Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17:26PM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
How significant is the cache maintenance over head?
Per,
Can you measure how much difference this has before and after your
patch set please?
Absolutely,
On 21 June 2011 10:09, Per Forlin per.for...@linaro.org wrote:
On 21 June 2011 09:53, Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17:26PM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
How significant is the cache maintenance over head?
Per,
Can you measure how much
12 matches
Mail list logo
