[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1464848612.19646.5.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 16:23:32 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.orgv,
irtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, waiman.long@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 0/6] powerPC/pSeries use pv-qpsinlock as the
default spinlock implemention
On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 13:03 +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> change from v3:
> a big change in [PATCH v4 4/6] pv-qspinlock: powerpc support pv-qspinlock
> no other patch changed.
> and the patch cover letter tilte has changed as only pseries may need use pv-qspinlock, not all powerpc.
>
> 1) __pv_wait will not return until *ptr != val as Waiman gives me a tip.
> 2) support lock holder serching by storing cpu number into a hash table(implemented as an array)
> This is because lock_stealing hit too much, up to 10%~20% of all the successful lock(), and avoid
> vcpu slices bounce.
You sent v4 last night, why did you resend again?
RESEND usually means "I sent this a while ago and got no response so here it is again".
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists