Re: [PATCH v2 22/25] powerpc32: move xxxxx_dcache_range() functions inline

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:12 +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > flush/clean/invalidate _dcache_range() functions are all very
> > similar and are quite short. They are mainly used in __dma_sync()
> > perf_event locate them in the top 3 consumming functions during
> > heavy ethernet activity
> > 
> > They are good candidate for inlining, as __dma_sync() does
> > almost nothing but calling them
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > New in v2
> > 
> >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/cacheflush.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S         | 65 ------------------------------
> > -----
> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c       |  2 ++
> >  3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cacheflush.h 
> > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> > index 6229e6b..6169604 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> > @@ -47,12 +47,61 @@ static inline void 
> > __flush_dcache_icache_phys(unsigned long physaddr)
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >  
> > -extern void flush_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long stop);
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC32
> > -extern void clean_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long stop);
> > -extern void invalidate_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long 
> > stop);
> > +/*
> > + * Write any modified data cache blocks out to memory and invalidate 
> > them.
> > + * Does not invalidate the corresponding instruction cache blocks.
> > + */
> > +static inline void flush_dcache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long 
> > stop)
> > +{
> > +   void *addr = (void *)(start & ~(L1_CACHE_BYTES - 1));
> > +   unsigned int size = stop - (unsigned long)addr + (L1_CACHE_BYTES - 1);
> > +   unsigned int i;
> > +
> > +   for (i = 0; i < size >> L1_CACHE_SHIFT; i++, addr += L1_CACHE_BYTES)
> > +           dcbf(addr);
> > +   if (i)
> > +           mb();   /* sync */
> > +}
> 
> This feels optimized for the uncommon case when there is no invalidation.

If you mean the "if (i)", yes, that looks odd.

> I THINK it would be better to bail early 

Bail under what conditions?

> and use do { .. } while(--i); instead.

GCC knows how to optimize loops.  Please don't make them less readable.

-Scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/