[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1398875537.2618.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:32:17 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rwsem: Support optimistic spinning
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 03:09:01PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
> > +#else
> > +static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > +{
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> On the mutex side we guard this with MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER, do we want to
> use that here too?
I thought of it, but hated adding mutex naming to rwsem code -- we
already do it for cpu_relax() thanks to s390.
MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER depends on SMP && !DEBUG_MUTEXES.
Right now rwsem optimistic spinning depends on SMP && RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM.
It might sense to add RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER to encapsulate what we already
have. I don't think we want DEBUG_MUTEX dependencies in rwsems. Would
you accept such thing?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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