On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:35:45 +0200
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 02:27 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:19:30 +0200
> > Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/16/2016 10:57 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >>> Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax(
On 09/20/2016 02:27 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:19:30 +0200
> Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>> On 09/16/2016 10:57 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>> Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
>>> some difficulties for powerpc.
>>>
>>> First, we want to pu
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:19:30 +0200
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 09/16/2016 10:57 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
> > some difficulties for powerpc.
> >
> > First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
> >
On 09/16/2016 10:57 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
> some difficulties for powerpc.
>
> First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
> duration of the loop, but then return to normal priority after exiting
> the
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:45:52 +1000
Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 16/09/16 18:57, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
> > some difficulties for powerpc.
> >
> > First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
> > duration of t
On 16/09/16 18:57, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
> some difficulties for powerpc.
>
> First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
> duration of the loop, but then return to normal priority after exiting
> the loo
> diff --git a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> index 3b5bafc..695743c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bit_spinlock.h
> @@ -25,9 +25,8 @@ static inline void bit_spin_lock(int bitnum, unsigned long
> *addr)
> #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:06:35 +1000
Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:57:37 +
> David Laight wrote:
>
> > From: Nicholas Piggin
> > > Sent: 16 September 2016 12:52
> > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:30:58 +
> > > David Laight wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Nicholas Piggin
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:57:37 +
David Laight wrote:
> From: Nicholas Piggin
> > Sent: 16 September 2016 12:52
> > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:30:58 +
> > David Laight wrote:
> >
> > > From: Nicholas Piggin
> > > > Sent: 16 September 2016 09:58
> > > > Implementing busy wait loops with cpu
From: Nicholas Piggin
> Sent: 16 September 2016 12:52
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:30:58 +
> David Laight wrote:
>
> > From: Nicholas Piggin
> > > Sent: 16 September 2016 09:58
> > > Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
> > > some difficulties for powerpc.
> > >
> > > Fi
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:30:58 +
David Laight wrote:
> From: Nicholas Piggin
> > Sent: 16 September 2016 09:58
> > Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
> > some difficulties for powerpc.
> >
> > First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
> >
From: Nicholas Piggin
> Sent: 16 September 2016 09:58
> Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
> some difficulties for powerpc.
>
> First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
> duration of the loop, but then return to normal priority after exiting
Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
some difficulties for powerpc.
First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
duration of the loop, but then return to normal priority after exiting
the loop. Dependong on the CPU design, 'HMT_low() ; HMT_medium
13 matches
Mail list logo
