mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@synopsys.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
	'Jose Abreu' <jose.abreu@synopsys.com>,
	"linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com>,
	Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com>,
	Joao Pinto <joao.pinto@synopsys.com>,
	"Vitor Soares" <vitor.soares@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: io.h: Implement reads{x}()/writes{x}()
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:19:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1fef03c6-05cb-cc9b-ffdd-cb5f7d790322@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2c8c8e0-ae78-053f-0a80-311cd55927e1@synopsys.com>

On 29-11-2018 13:11, Jose Abreu wrote
>> I was thinking of the (probably likely) case where the pointer is
>> actually aligned.
>> An extra check for ((pointer) & 3) is almost certainly a 'win'
>> over the byte accesses and shift/mask/or use by get/put_unaligned().

Oh, sorry. I was misunderstanding. You mean like adding a check
for unaligned and use get/put_unaligned() only in that case right ?

Sorry.

>>
>> The IO accesses probably dominate making more complex optimisations
>> less likely to have any benefit.
>>
>> 	David
>>
>> -
>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)


  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-29 13:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-29 12:42 Jose Abreu
2018-11-29 12:47 ` David Laight
2018-11-29 12:53   ` Jose Abreu
2018-11-29 13:03     ` David Laight
2018-11-29 13:11       ` Jose Abreu
2018-11-29 13:19         ` Jose Abreu [this message]
2018-11-29 12:55 ` Alexey Brodkin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1fef03c6-05cb-cc9b-ffdd-cb5f7d790322@synopsys.com \
    --to=jose.abreu@synopsys.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
    --cc=alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com \
    --cc=joao.pinto@synopsys.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
    --cc=vitor.soares@synopsys.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®