[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411272231450.3961@nanos>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:37:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
cc: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>,
Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
Dmitry Pervushin <dpervushin@...il.com>,
Tim Sander <tim@...eglstein.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18-rc4 v11 2/6] irqchip: gic: Optimize locking in
gic_raise_softirq
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> Currently gic_raise_softirq() unconditionally takes and releases a lock
> whose only purpose is to synchronize with the b.L switcher.
>
> Remove this lock if the b.L switcher is not compiled in.
I think the patches are in the wrong order. We optimize for the sane
use case first, i.e BL=n. So you want to make the locking of
irq_controller_lock in gic_raise_softirq() conditional in the first
place, which should have been done when this was introduced.
Once you have isolated that you can apply your split lock patch for
the BL=y nonsense.
Adding more locks first and then optimizing them out does not make any
sense.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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