Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:45:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@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.

Oops, too many q-locks ;-)

> I've got this entire pile waiting for something:
> 
>   lkml.kernel.org/r/20140210195820.834693028@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.

Can merge them in tip:core/locking if there's no objections.

Thanks,

	Ingo