[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:28:45 +0300
From: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
pan xinhui <mnipxh@...mail.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Adam Wallis <awallis@...eaurora.org>,
Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@...ium.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jan Glauber <jglauber@...ium.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued
spinlocks and rw-locks
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:26:40PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:53:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:28:09PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > I don't think
> > > it's a real use case to have ticket spinlocks and queued rwlocks
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with that combination. In fact, we merged qrwlock
> > much earlier than qspinlock.
>
> ... and that's almost certainly the direction we'll go on arm64 too, not
> least because the former are a lot easier to grok.
>
> Will
Hmm. Then I think I have to split patch 3 to rwlock and spinlock
parts, and allow user to enable them independently in config.
Yury
Powered by blists - more mailing lists