[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 13:53:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: pan xinhui <mnipxh@...mail.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Adam Wallis <awallis@...eaurora.org>,
Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@...ium.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@...ium.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued
spinlocks and rw-locks
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:28:09PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> I don't think
> it's a real use case to have ticket spinlocks and queued rwlocks
There's nothing wrong with that combination. In fact, we merged qrwlock
much earlier than qspinlock.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists