Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 17:39:31 +0100
Message-ID: <87msx8nb24.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Rex Nie <rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: move reading of GICR_TYPER later
In-Reply-To: <20230925023408.1441-1-rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com>
References: <20230925023408.1441-1-rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/28.2
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 03:34:08 +0100,
Rex Nie <rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com> wrote:
> 
> This changeset will reduce one reading of GICR_TYPER register
> when any of next 2 condictions meets:
> 1. found redistributor for current cpu
> 2. single_redist is true for gic_data.redist_regions[i]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rex Nie <rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> index eedfa8e9f077..d08a4773f631 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> @@ -982,7 +982,6 @@ static int gic_iterate_rdists(int (*fn)(struct redist_region *, void __iomem *))
>  		}
>  
>  		do {
> -			typer = gic_read_typer(ptr + GICR_TYPER);
>  			ret = fn(gic_data.redist_regions + i, ptr);
>  			if (!ret)
>  				return 0;
> @@ -990,6 +989,7 @@ static int gic_iterate_rdists(int (*fn)(struct redist_region *, void __iomem *))
>  			if (gic_data.redist_regions[i].single_redist)
>  				break;
>  
> +			typer = gic_read_typer(ptr + GICR_TYPER);
>  			if (gic_data.redist_stride) {
>  				ptr += gic_data.redist_stride;
>  			} else {

I personally prefer establishing the exit condition for the loop as
early as possible. Doing it later makes this code slightly more
fragile, and I somehow doubt that you will notice the extra reads.

Can you at least quantify the improvement?

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.