From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/6] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:39:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171006083944.GA10941@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e2468c3-894e-1204-4578-3d8266c56d6c@arm.com>
Hi Jeremy,
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:12:44PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 07:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >This patch series reworks bits of the qrwlock code that it can be used
> >to replace the asm rwlocks currently implemented for arm64. The structure
> >of the series is:
> >
> > Patches 1-3 : Work WFE into qrwlock using atomic_cond_read_acquire so
> > we can avoid busy-waiting.
> >
> > Patch 4 : Enable qrwlocks for arm64
> >
> > Patch 5-6 : Ensure writer slowpath fairness. This has a potential
> > performance impact on the writer unlock path, so I've
> > kept them at the end.
> >
> >The patches apply on top of my other locking cleanups:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1507055129-12300-1-git-send-email-will.deacon at arm.com
> >
> >although the conflict with mainline is trivial to resolve without those.
> >The full stack is also pushed here:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git qrwlock
> >
> >All comments (particularly related to testing and performance) welcome!
>
> I haven't done any perf testing, but the machines continue to boot, and the
> stress-ng test which causes task lock problems with the normal arm64 rwlock
> now appears to run as expected. So, its a good start!
Excellent! Mind if I add your tested-by?
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org,
mingo@redhat.com, longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:39:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171006083944.GA10941@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e2468c3-894e-1204-4578-3d8266c56d6c@arm.com>
Hi Jeremy,
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:12:44PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 07:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >This patch series reworks bits of the qrwlock code that it can be used
> >to replace the asm rwlocks currently implemented for arm64. The structure
> >of the series is:
> >
> > Patches 1-3 : Work WFE into qrwlock using atomic_cond_read_acquire so
> > we can avoid busy-waiting.
> >
> > Patch 4 : Enable qrwlocks for arm64
> >
> > Patch 5-6 : Ensure writer slowpath fairness. This has a potential
> > performance impact on the writer unlock path, so I've
> > kept them at the end.
> >
> >The patches apply on top of my other locking cleanups:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1507055129-12300-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com
> >
> >although the conflict with mainline is trivial to resolve without those.
> >The full stack is also pushed here:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git qrwlock
> >
> >All comments (particularly related to testing and performance) welcome!
>
> I haven't done any perf testing, but the machines continue to boot, and the
> stress-ng test which causes task lock problems with the normal arm64 rwlock
> now appears to run as expected. So, its a good start!
Excellent! Mind if I add your tested-by?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-06 8:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-05 12:54 [PATCH 0/6] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` [PATCH 1/6] kernel/locking: Use struct qrwlock instead of struct __qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking/atomic: Add atomic_cond_read_acquire Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` [PATCH 3/6] kernel/locking: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire when spinning in qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` [PATCH 4/6] arm64: locking: Move rwlock implementation over to qrwlocks Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` [PATCH 5/6] kernel/locking: Prevent slowpath writers getting held up by fastpath Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-05 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-05 14:37 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-05 14:37 ` Waiman Long
2017-10-05 14:42 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 14:42 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` [PATCH 6/6] kernel/locking: Remove unused union members from struct qrwlock Will Deacon
2017-10-05 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2017-10-05 22:12 ` [PATCH 0/6] Switch arm64 over to qrwlock Jeremy Linton
2017-10-05 22:12 ` Jeremy Linton
2017-10-06 8:39 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-10-06 8:39 ` Will Deacon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-10-10 15:17 Jan Glauber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171006083944.GA10941@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.