[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zjnxlxtg.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:16:11 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arch\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:38:29AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> (maybe it would be time to get rid of the patchable LOCK though?)
>
> With the argument that Intel simply doesn't ship UP chips anymore, with
> the exception of quark which should probably run custom UP kernels due
> to size constraints anyway?
That, and:
- Anything with a single core only has very fast LOCK
- LOCK generally became much faster everywhere.
- The original reason was for single cpu VM guests, but even those
should increasingly have at least two VCPUs.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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