Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-85-gd6d859e0cf-fm-20230116.001-gd6d859e0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <38a9a8f8-6bc7-42aa-b5e2-0148371e29c8@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d492ee4a391bd089a01c218b0b4e05cf8ea593c.1674729407.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
References: <8d492ee4a391bd089a01c218b0b4e05cf8ea593c.1674729407.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:07:29 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To:     "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        "Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        "Tomasz Figa" <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>,
        "Sylwester Nawrocki" <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
        "Wolfram Sang" <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        "Dejin Zheng" <zhengdejin5@gmail.com>,
        "Kai-Heng Feng" <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
        "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        "Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] iopoll: Call cpu_relax() in busy loops
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 11:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> It is considered good practice to call cpu_relax() in busy loops, see
> Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst.  This can not
> only lower CPU power consumption or yield to a hyperthreaded twin
> processor, but also allows an architecture to mitigate hardware issues
> (e.g. ARM Erratum 754327 for Cortex-A9 prior to r2p0) in the
> architecture-specific cpu_relax() implementation.
>
> As the iopoll helpers lack calls to cpu_relax(), people are sometimes
> reluctant to use them, and may fall back to open-coded polling loops
> (including cpu_relax() calls) instead.
>
> Fix this by adding calls to cpu_relax() to the iopoll helpers:
>   - For the non-atomic case, it is sufficient to call cpu_relax() in
>     case of a zero sleep-between-reads value, as a call to
>     usleep_range() is a safe barrier otherwise.
>   - For the atomic case, cpu_relax() must be called regardless of the
>     sleep-between-reads value, as there is no guarantee all
>     architecture-specific implementations of udelay() handle this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>