[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130215155757.GD3324@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:57:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, rostedt@...dmiss.org,
aquini@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] x86/smp: Move waiting on contended ticket
lock out of line
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Btw, it may end up that almost nobody cares. Modern CPU's are
> really good at handling the straightforward "save/restore to
> stack" instructions. One of the reasons I care is not
> performance per se, butu the fact that I still look at asm
> code every time I do any performance profiling, and it's
> absolutely horrible to see the code when you see "ugh, that's
> pointless". I'm sensitive to the spinlocks in particular,
> because we've gone back and forth on inlining them before, so
> I've seen this. But right now I don't think we inline the lock
> under normal configs *anyway*, so I guess it doesn't much
> matter.
Yes, right now we only inline non-debug spin_unlock() and
spin_unlock_irq() [on !PREEMPT] - because that was an
unconditional win.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists