From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 0/2] locking/qrwlock: Improve qrwlock performance Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:53:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20150716155312.GK26390@arm.com> References: <1436459543-29126-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1436459543-29126-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Scott J Norton , Douglas Hatch List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Hi Waiman, On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote: > v1->v2: > - Take out patch 1 which had been merged to tip. > - Take out patch 4 as the change may impact light load performance > - Rebased to the latest tip branch > > In converting some existing spinlocks to rwlock, it was found that > the write lock slowpath performance isn't as good as the qspinlock. > This patch series tries to improve qrwlock performance to close the > gap between qspinlock and qrwlock. > > With this patch series in place, we can start converting some spinlocks > back to rwlocks where it makes sense and the lock size increase isn't > a concern. Both of these patches look fine to me: Acked-by: Will Deacon Cheers, Will