* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:45:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Waiman,
> > >
> > > I promised you this series a number of days ago; sorry for the delay
> > > I've been somewhat unwell :/
> > >
> > > That said, these few patches start with a (hopefully) simple and
> > > correct form of the queue spinlock, and then gradually build upon
> > > it, explaining each optimization as we go.
> > >
> > > Having these optimizations as separate patches helps twofold;
> > > firstly it makes one aware of which exact optimizations were done,
> > > and secondly it allows one to proove or disprove any one step;
> > > seeing how they should be mostly identity transforms.
> > >
> > > The resulting code is near to what you posted I think; however it
> > > has one atomic op less in the pending wait-acquire case for NR_CPUS
> > > != huge. It also doesn't do lock stealing; its still perfectly fair
> > > afaict.
> > >
> > > Have I missed any tricks from your code?
> >
> > Waiman, you indicated in the other thread that these look good to
> > you, right? If so then I can queue them up so that they form a
> > base for further work.
>
> Ah, no that was on the qrwlock; I think we managed to cross wires
> somewhere.
Oops, too many q-locks ;-)
> I've got this entire pile waiting for something:
>
> lkml.kernel.org/r/20140210195820.834693...@infradead.org
>
> That's 5 mutex patches and the 2 qrwlock patches. Not sure what to
> do with them. To merge or not, that is the question.
Can merge them in tip:core/locking if there's no objections.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
