[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53515BC2.6000602@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:07:14 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/19] qspinlock: Add pending bit
On 04/18/2014 04:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:20:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> + while ((val = atomic_read(&lock->val))& _Q_LOCKED_MASK)
>>>> + arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
>>> That was a cpu_relax().
>> Yes, but arch_mutex_cpu_relax() is the same as cpu_relax() for x86.
> Yeah, so why bother typing more?
>
> Let the s390 people sort that if/when they try and make this work for
> them.
OK, I can revert the change if you wish. I have no objection for that.
-Longman
--
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