[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53BAC676.5030804@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:10:30 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Waiman.Long@...com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
paolo.bonzini@...il.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
riel@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
oleg@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com, scott.norton@...com,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS
Il 07/07/2014 17:35, Peter Zijlstra ha scritto:
>> > Unlike the change in patch 4, clear_pending_set_locked doesn't change how
>> > qspinlock moves from a state to the next.
> True, but its where we start to break up into smaller functions. And the
> only reason we break them out is because we'll get different
> implementations depending on NR_CPUS.
>
> So we can view the breakout of xchg_tail and clear_and_set_pending as
> preparatory work for introducing the NR_CPUS thing.
That's a different reasoning, but it's fine by me too.
Paolo
--
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