[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230803085004.GF212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 10:50:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com, arnd@...db.de,
longman@...hat.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
guohanjun@...wei.com, jglauber@...vell.com,
steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
dave.dice@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 3/6] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow
path of qspinlock
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 07:14:05PM -0400, Guo Ren wrote:
> The pv_ops is belongs to x86 custom frame work, and it prevent other
> architectures connect to the CNA spinlock.
static_call() exists as a arch neutral variant of this.
> I'm working on riscv qspinlock on sg2042 64 cores 2/4 NUMA nodes
> platforms. Here are the patches about riscv CNA qspinlock:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230802164701.192791-19-guoren@kernel.org/
>
> What's the next plan for this patch series? I think the two-queue design
> has satisfied most platforms with two NUMA nodes.
What has been your reason for working on CNA? What lock has been so
contended you need this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists