On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:06:55AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 08:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > While I like the general idea; does anyone have a better name for this?
> > So in particular, the difference is that on s390:
> >
> > cpu_relax() - yields the vcpu
> > arch_{,mutex_}cpu_relax() - will actually spin-wait
>
> iirc Heiko had suggested cpu_relax_simple() in the past. I don't think
> it's any better or worse than arch_cpu_relax(). For s390
> cpu_relax_noyield() would perhaps be suitable, but not very descriptive
> for the rest of the archs. I'm really lacking creativity for this name.
Maybe cpu_relax_spin() ? However that doesn't sound much better as well.
--
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/
