Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:06:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long wrote:
>> > > >> On 10/22/21 7:
On 10/25/21 11:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 5:28 PM Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/25/21 9:06 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On s390, we pick between the cmpxchg() based directed-yield when
running on virtualized CPUs, and a normal qspinlock when running on a
dedicated CPU.
I am no
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 5:28 PM Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/25/21 9:06 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > On s390, we pick between the cmpxchg() based directed-yield when
> > running on virtualized CPUs, and a normal qspinlock when running on a
> > dedicated CPU.
>
> I am not aware that s390 is using
On 10/25/21 9:06 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
As this is all
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:06:24PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long wrote:
> > > >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long wrote:
> > >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > > >
> > > > As this is all dead code, ju
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:57:28AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long wrote:
> > >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > > >
> > > > As this is all dead
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > >
> > > As this is all dead code, just remove it and the helper functions built
> > > around it. For arc
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 3:37 AM Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > As this is all dead code, just remove it and the helper functions built
> > around it. For arch/ia64, the inline asm could be cleaned up, but
> > it seems safer to leave
On 10/22/21 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
parisc, ia64 and powerpc32 are the only remaining architectures that
provide custom arch_{spin,read,write}_lock_flags() functions, which are
meant to re-enable interrupts while waiting for a spinlock.
However, none of these can actu
On 10/22/21 13:59, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> parisc, ia64 and powerpc32 are the only remaining architectures that
> provide custom arch_{spin,read,write}_lock_flags() functions, which are
> meant to re-enable interrupts while waiting for a spinlock.
>
> However, none of these
From: Arnd Bergmann
parisc, ia64 and powerpc32 are the only remaining architectures that
provide custom arch_{spin,read,write}_lock_flags() functions, which are
meant to re-enable interrupts while waiting for a spinlock.
However, none of these can actually run into this codepath, because
it is o
12 matches
Mail list logo