[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFsvTXg07U+Adsto@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:23:41 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
Cc: guoren@...nel.org, linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock
implementation
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:15:47PM +0100, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 11:16 AM <guoren@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >
> > This patch introduces a ticket lock implementation for riscv, along the
> > same lines as the implementation for arch/arm & arch/csky.
> >
>
> Could you please provide a rationale for this? Like, what is wrong with the
> current implementation.
test-and-set spinlocks have terrible worst case behaviour.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists