Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 09:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: +enum futex_type { + TYPE_PI = 0, + TYPE_TO, +}; Please introduce the futex_type magic and the related changes to the pi code in a seperate patch so it can be verified independently. It's sad

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] futex: Add futex_set_timer() helper function

On 09/22/2016 05:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: Please be more careful of your subject lines. First thing I thought was that you add a helper which is used in later patches to find out that you actualy consolidate duplicated code. Something like:

Re: kernel-lintdoc parser - was: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc-rst:c-domain: fix some issues in the c-domain

Am 22.09.2016 um 14:35 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab : > Hi Markus, > 3) this is actually a more complex problem: how to represent returned values > from the function callbacks. Maybe we'll need to patch kernel-doc. This might be a solution for dense kernel-doc comments

Re: kernel-lintdoc parser - was: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc-rst:c-domain: fix some issues in the c-domain

Hi Mauro, thanks a lot for your tests and inspirations ... Am 22.09.2016 um 14:35 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab : > Hi Markus, > > Em Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:08:50 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu: > >> Em Tue, 20 Sep 2016 20:56:35 +0200 >>

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 05:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: BTW, my initial attempt for the new futex was to use the same workflow as the PI futexes, but use mutex which has optimistic spinning instead of rt_mutex. Btw,

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 04:38 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: BTW, my initial attempt for the new futex was to use the same workflow as the PI futexes, but use mutex which has optimistic spinning instead of rt_mutex. That version can double the throughput compared with

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > > > BTW, my initial attempt for the new futex was to use the same workflow as > > the PI futexes, but use mutex which has optimistic spinning instead of > > rt_mutex. > > Btw, Thomas, do you still have any

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: BTW, my initial attempt for the new futex was to use the same workflow as the PI futexes, but use mutex which has optimistic spinning instead of rt_mutex. Btw, Thomas, do you still have any interest pursuing this for rtmutexes from -rt into mainline?

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 04:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: On 09/22/2016 09:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: I'd leave out the TO part entirely (or only mention it in changelogs). That is, I'd call the futex ops: FUTEX_LOCK

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 04:08 PM, Waiman Long wrote: On 09/22/2016 11:11 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Also what's the reason that we can't do probabilistic spinning for >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > BTW, my initial attempt for the new futex was to use the same workflow as the > PI futexes, but use mutex which has optimistic spinning instead of rt_mutex. > That version can double the throughput compared with PI futexes but still far > short of what can

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > On 09/22/2016 09:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > I'd leave out the TO part entirely (or only mention it in changelogs). > > > > > > That is, I'd call the futex ops: FUTEX_LOCK and FUTEX_UNLOCK. > >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 11:11 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Also what's the reason that we can't do probabilistic spinning for > FUTEX_WAIT and have to add yet another

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 09:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: I'd leave out the TO part entirely (or only mention it in changelogs). That is, I'd call the futex ops: FUTEX_LOCK and FUTEX_UNLOCK. That brings me to a different question: How is user space going to

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where > > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump > > labels", then out of nowhere we

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] futex, doc: TO futexes document

On 09/22/2016 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: Yes, I will certainly send patch to update the manpages after the new futex gets merged into the upstream kernel. Or should I do that in parallel? It won't get merged w/o a patch to the manpage which is

Re: XDP (eXpress Data Path) documentation

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:08:44 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > As promised, I've started documenting the XDP eXpress Data Path): > > [1] > https://prototype-kernel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/networking/XDP/index.html > > IMHO the documentation have reached a stage

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 09:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:42:41AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: +/* + * Spinning threshold before enabling lock handoff. + * Each sleep will decrement the threshold by 1/32 of the start value. + */ +#define TO_SPIN_THRESHOLD (1<< 13) +#define

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump > labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the > output of checkpatch (how is

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > The main intent of checkpatch these days appears to be providing an easy > way of thoughtless inflation of commit counts, everything else be damned. You've made this statement several times over many years. I don't believe it's true. I doubt

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

> > The main intent of checkpatch these days appears to be providing an easy > > way of thoughtless inflation of commit counts, everything else be damned. > > Make-work, in other words. > > Yes, I've noticed the trend too :-( But that's a problem with the > people using the tool, mostly, not with

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Also what's the reason that we can't do probabilistic spinning for > FUTEX_WAIT and have to add yet another specialized variant of futexes? Where would this

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:11:03 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > > > MUST is much stronger language than I would prefer. > > > > That's what error means, really. When your compiler fails with an > > error, you have no choice but to fix

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Move runnable tools from Documentation to tools

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:51:10 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote: > Move runnable tools from Documentation to tools. I moved just the > tools code, and left documentation files as is. > > Based on the v1 series feedback, This v2 series moves accounting, > laptops/dslm, and pcmcia to

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>This patch introduces a new futex

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] futex, doc: TO futexes document

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > On 09/22/2016 06:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > > > This patch adds a new document file on how to use the TO futexes. > > Documentation is nice, but the proper place for documenting this is the > > futex(2) man

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > >On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > >>This patch introduces a new futex implementation called > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] pci: support for configurable PCI endpoint

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 2:03:05 PM CEST Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > On Wednesday 14 September 2016 06:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:41:56 AM CEST Kishon Vijay Abraham I > > wrote: > > I've added the drivers/ntb maintainers to Cc, given that there

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > +enum futex_type { > + TYPE_PI = 0, > + TYPE_TO, > +}; Please introduce the futex_type magic and the related changes to the pi code in a seperate patch so it can be verified independently. It's sad that one has to explain that to you over and over

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] futex, doc: TO futexes document

On 09/22/2016 06:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: This patch adds a new document file on how to use the TO futexes. Documentation is nice, but the proper place for documenting this is the futex(2) man page. Thanks, tglx Yes, I will certainly send

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On 09/22/2016 03:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: This patch introduces a new futex implementation called throughput-optimized (TO)

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:57:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > MUST is much stronger language than I would prefer. > > That's what error means, really. When your compiler fails with an > error, you have no choice but to fix your code. Warnings on the other > hand may be ignored sometimes.

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Jani, > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:43:42 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> You could make checkpatch have different defaults for patches and files, >> to encourage better style in new code, but to discourage finding >> problems in

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

Hi Jani, On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:43:42 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jean Delvare wrote: > > You need to think in terms of actual use cases. Who uses checkpatch and > > why? I think there are 3 groups of users: > > * Beginners. They won't run the script by

kernel-lintdoc parser - was: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc-rst:c-domain: fix some issues in the c-domain

Hi Markus, Em Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:08:50 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu: > Em Tue, 20 Sep 2016 20:56:35 +0200 > Markus Heiser escreveu: > > The new parser seems to have some bugs, like those: > > $ kernel-lintdoc

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc-rst:c-domain: fix some issues in the c-domain

Em Tue, 20 Sep 2016 20:56:35 +0200 Markus Heiser escreveu: > > If I understood it right, I could do something like: > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/media/conf_nitpick.py > > b/Documentation/media/conf_nitpick.py > > index 480d548af670..2de603871536 100644 > > ---

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:42:10 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:24 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > I would rather suggest: > > > > ERROR -> MUST_FIX > > WARNING -> SHOULD_FIX > > CHECK -> MAY_FIX > > MUST is much stronger language than I would prefer. That's what error means,

[PATCH 13/17] Documentation/serial-console.txt: convert it to ReST markup

- Fix identation for the document title; - use monotonic fonts for paths; - use quote blocks where needed; - adjust spaces to properly format paragraphs; - use :menuselection: for the menu item; - add it to the user book. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab ---

[PATCH 14/17] Documentation/braille-console: convert it to ReST markup

- Fix identation for the document title; - use monotonic fonts for paths; - use quote blocks where needed; - adjust spaces to properly format paragraphs; - use :menuselection: and :kbd: for the menu item and keys; - point too the right item at the menu; - add it to the user book. Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 08/17] docs-rst: create an user's manual book

Place README, REPORTING-BUGS, SecurityBugs and kernel-parameters on an user's manual book. As we'll be numbering the user's manual, remove the manual numbering from SecurityBugs. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/SecurityBugs | 12

[PATCH 12/17] Documentation/binfmt_misc.txt: convert it to ReST markup

- Fix identation for the document title; - use monotonic fonts for commands, paths, etc; - use quote blocks where needed; - adjust spaces to properly format paragraphs; - add it to the user book. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/binfmt_misc.txt

[PATCH 05/17] README: convert it to ReST markup

Adjust the readme file for it to use the ReST markup: - add chapter/section markups; - use ``foo`` for commands; - use :: for verbatim and script blocks; - replace unsupported markup _foo_ by **foo**; - add cross-references to other ReST files; - use lower case on the section titles, to match

[PATCH 03/17] docs-rst: add inter-document cross references

Add cross references for the development process documents that were converted to ReST: Documentation/SubmitChecklist Documentation/SubmittingDrivers Documentation/SubmittingPatches Documentation/development-process/development-process.rst

[PATCH 15/17] Documentation/BUG-HUNTING: convert to ReST markup

- Add a document title and remove its own index; - use monotonic fonts for paths; - use quote blocks where needed; - adjust/use spaces to properly format paragraphs; - add it to the user book. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/BUG-HUNTING

[PATCH 07/17] docs-rst: add documents to development-process

Add several documents to the development-process ReST book. As we don't want renames, use symlinks instead, keeping those documents on their original place. Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab ---

[PATCH 09/17] Documentation/adding-syscalls.txt: convert it to ReST markup

Convert adding-syscalls.txt to ReST markup and add it to the development-process book: - add extra lines to make Sphinx to correctly parse paragraphs; - use quote blocks for examples; - use monotonic font for dirs, function calls, etc; - mark manpage pages using the right markup; - add

[PATCH 10/17] Documentation/bad_memory.txt: convert it to ReST markup

- promote the section level of the document name; - add/remove spaces/new lines where needed to format the output; - use quote blocks. - add it to the user book. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/bad_memory.txt | 26 --

[PATCH 00/17] More files converted to ReST format

This series contain conversion of other files that, IMHO, belong to the development-process book or to an user manual book. Patch 1 is actually just a fixup; Patch 2 is actually patch 28/29 from my past series that weren' t applied because it was merging file renames on it; Patch 3 add ReST

[PATCH 04/17] REPORTING-BUGS: convert to ReST markup

- add a title to the document; - use :: before verbatim blocks; - add blank lines where required; - use protocol for URL references; - use a verbatim block for the bugs template; - add cross references to SecurityBugs. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab ---

[PATCH 02/17] Documentation/email-clients.txt: convert it to ReST markup

As this file is mentioned at the development-process/ book, let's convert it to ReST markup. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/email-clients.txt | 208 ++-- 1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)

[PATCH 06/17] Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt: convert to ReST markup

Adjust the file for it to be parsed by Sphinx: - adjust the document title to be parsed; - use :: for quote blocks; - fix the horizontal bar markup; - lower case the TODO title. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 33

[PATCH 11/17] Documentation/basic_profiling.rst: convert to ReST markup

Convert it to ReST markup and add it to the user book: - Add a title to the document; - touch spaces/new lines to fix Sphinx format; - use ``foo`` for commands; - use quote blocks where needed; - add it to the user book; Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab ---

[PATCH 16/17] CodeOfConflict: add it to the development-process book

Add an extra blank line to improve its output and add it to the development-process bookset. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/CodeOfConflict | 1 + Documentation/development-process/CodeOfConflict.rst | 1 +

[PATCH 01/17] Documentation/applying-patches.txt: fix a bad external link

We can't use :ref: for external links. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- Documentation/applying-patches.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt index

[PATCH] [media] get rid of a number of problems at the cross references

As warned by linuxdoc[1] tool: include/media/v4l2-mc.h:56 [kernel-doc WARN] : enum name from comment differs: if_vid_dec_index <--> if_vid_dec_pad_index include/media/v4l2-mc.h:71 [kernel-doc WARN] : enum name from comment differs: if_aud_dec_index <--> if_aud_dec_pad_index

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:32:03 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> > I think it is better to be clear.  CHECK was never really clear to me, >> > especially if you see it in

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] futex, doc: TO futexes document

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > This patch adds a new document file on how to use the TO futexes. Documentation is nice, but the proper place for documenting this is the futex(2) man page. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:24 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: [] > > The seriousness with which some beginners take these message > > types though is troublesome, [] > You need to think in terms of actual use cases. Who uses checkpatch and > why? I think there are 3 groups of users: > * Beginners. They

Re: XDP (eXpress Data Path) documentation

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:03:24 -0700 Tom Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > As promised, I've started documenting the XDP eXpress Data Path): > > > > [1] > >

Re: [PATCH RESEND] crypto: doc - fix documentation for bulk registration functions

Eric Biggers wrote: > Update the documentation for crypto_register_algs() and > crypto_unregister_algs() to match the actual behavior. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers Your previous submission has already been applied. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu

Re: [PATCH] docs: Remove space-before-label guidance from CodingStyle

Hi Jonathan, On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:54:01 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Recent discussion has made it clear that there is no community consensus > on this particular rule. Remove it now, lest it inspire yet another set > of unwanted "cleanup" patches. > > This partially reverts 865a1caa4b6b

Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

Hi Joe, On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:32:03 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > I think it is better to be clear.  CHECK was never really clear to me, > > especially if you see it in isolation, on a file that doesn't also have > > ERROR or WARNING. 

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>This patch introduces a new futex implementation called > >>throughput-optimized (TO) futexes. > >nit: 'TO' sounds way too much

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tools: move pcmcia crc32hash tool from Documentation

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:51:13PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > Move pcmcia crc32hash tool from Documentation to tools/pcmcia and > remove it from Documentation Makefile. Update location information > for this tool. Create a new Makefile to build pcmcia. It can be built > from top level directory or