[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181106122713.GR22431@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 13:27:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bit_spinlock: introduce smp_cond_load_relaxed
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:36:41PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> IMO, to use wrapped up function for the detailed scenario could be better than
> open-coded all the time (eg. do cpu_relax(); while(...)) since it could be
> optimizated even more for the specific architecture...
That's the whole point though; if this actually matters, you're doing it
wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists