| From: |
| Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
| To: |
| Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> |
| Subject: |
| [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock |
| Date: |
| Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:42:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20140310154236.038181843@infradead.org> |
| Cc: |
| arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, walken@google.com, andi@firstfloor.org, riel@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
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?
The patches apply to tip/master + lkml.kernel.org/r/20140210195820.834693028@infradead.org
I've yet to look at the paravirt stuff.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
