On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:45:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > Hi Waiman, > > > > I promised you this series a number of days ago; sorry for the delay > > I've been somewhat unwell :/ > > > > That said, these few patches start with a (hopefully) simple and > > correct form of the queue spinlock, and then gradually build upon > > it, explaining each optimization as we go. > > > > Having these optimizations as separate patches helps twofold; > > firstly it makes one aware of which exact optimizations were done, > > and secondly it allows one to proove or disprove any one step; > > seeing how they should be mostly identity transforms. > > > > The resulting code is near to what you posted I think; however it > > has one atomic op less in the pending wait-acquire case for NR_CPUS > > != huge. It also doesn't do lock stealing; its still perfectly fair > > afaict. > > > > Have I missed any tricks from your code? > > Waiman, you indicated in the other thread that these look good to you, > right? If so then I can queue them up so that they form a base for > further work.
Ah, no that was on the qrwlock; I think we managed to cross wires somewhere. I've got this entire pile waiting for something: lkml.kernel.org/r/20140210195820.834693...@infradead.org That's 5 mutex patches and the 2 qrwlock patches. Not sure what to do with them. To merge or not, that is the question. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
