On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:57:19PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 09:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Anyone around with a ppc or arm? How slow is the loop of the
> spin_unlock_wait() calls?
> Single CPU is sufficient.
>
> Question 1: How large is the difference between:
>
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:57:19PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 09:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Anyone around with a ppc or arm? How slow is the loop of the
> spin_unlock_wait() calls?
> Single CPU is sufficient.
>
> Question 1: How large is the difference between:
>
Hi Peter,
On 09/02/2016 09:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:35:55AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 09/02/2016 09:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:35:55AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
On 09/02/2016 09:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:35:55AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Since
On 09/02/2016 09:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:35:55AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Since
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:35:55AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >>>Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:35:55AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >>>Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent
On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before
On 09/01/2016 06:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before
Hi Manfred,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:41:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > > Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
> > >
Hi Manfred,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:41:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > > Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
> > >
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
> > spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before spin_unlock_wait() is
> > also not required.
Note that
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:30:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
> > spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before spin_unlock_wait() is
> > also not required.
Note that
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
> spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before spin_unlock_wait() is
> also not required.
>
> Not for stable!
>
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
> spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before spin_unlock_wait() is
> also not required.
>
> Not for stable!
>
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul
> Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso
Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before spin_unlock_wait() is
also not required.
Not for stable!
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso
Cc:
Since spin_unlock_wait() is defined as equivalent to spin_lock();
spin_unlock(), the memory barrier before spin_unlock_wait() is
also not required.
Not for stable!
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso
Cc: netfilter-de...@vger.kernel.org
---
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 8
18 matches
Mail list logo