Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] improve the concurrency of arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain()

On 2019/8/23 16:06, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > On 2019/8/23 15:50, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:45:49AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >>> v2 --> v3: >>> As Will Deacon's suggestion, I changed the lock type of >>> arm_smmu_domain.devices_lock from spinlock_t to rwlock_t,

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] improve the concurrency of arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain()

On 2019/8/23 16:37, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 04:06:52PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: >> >> >> On 2019/8/23 15:50, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:45:49AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: v2 --> v3: As Will Deacon's suggestion, I changed the lock type

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] improve the concurrency of arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain()

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 04:06:52PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > On 2019/8/23 15:50, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:45:49AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > >> v2 --> v3: > >> As Will Deacon's suggestion, I changed the lock type of > >> arm_smmu_domain.devices_lock from

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] improve the concurrency of arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain()

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:45:49AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > v2 --> v3: > As Will Deacon's suggestion, I changed the lock type of > arm_smmu_domain.devices_lock from spinlock_t to rwlock_t, and I saw that the > performance is all right. And further use nr_ats_masters to quickly check have > no