[ Upstream commit b407460ee9 ]
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.
In addition, cpu_relax() is also a compiler barrier. It is not
immediately obvious that the @op argument "function" will result in an
actual function call (e.g. in case of inlining).
Where a function call is a C sequence point, this is lost on inlining.
Therefore, with agressive enough optimization it might be possible for
the compiler to hoist the:
(val) = op(args);
"load" out of the loop because it doesn't see the value changing. The
addition of cpu_relax() would inhibit this.
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. However, it doesn't
hurt to add the call regardless, for simplicity, and for similarity
with the atomic case below.
- 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: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/45c87bec3397fdd704376807f0eec5cc71be440f.1685692810.git.geert+renesas@glider.be
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
848149e899