From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
Sc
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other files
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:31:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <527A60E3.3000106@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1383679842.11046.298.camel@schen9-DESK>
On 11/05/2013 02:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 19:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead,
>>> + * users should call mcs_spin_lock().
>>> */
>>> -static noinline
>>> -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> +static inline
>>> +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> {
>>> struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
>>>
>> So why keep it in the header at all?
> I also made the suggestion originally of keeping both lock and unlock in
> mcs_spinlock.c. Wonder if Waiman decides to keep them in header
> because in-lining the unlock function makes execution a bit faster?
>
> Tim
>
I was following the example of the spinlock code where the lock function
is not inlined, but the unlock function is. I have no objection to make
them both as non-inlined functions, if you think that is the right move.
Regards,
Longman
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other files
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:31:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <527A60E3.3000106@hp.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20131106153147.8ZeainZaA5QUvWP5sq8VzKJyxAWzxqTKnC8qY9sxR5M@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1383679842.11046.298.camel@schen9-DESK>
On 11/05/2013 02:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 19:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead,
>>> + * users should call mcs_spin_lock().
>>> */
>>> -static noinline
>>> -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> +static inline
>>> +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> {
>>> struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
>>>
>> So why keep it in the header at all?
> I also made the suggestion originally of keeping both lock and unlock in
> mcs_spinlock.c. Wonder if Waiman decides to keep them in header
> because in-lining the unlock function makes execution a bit faster?
>
> Tim
>
I was following the example of the spinlock code where the lock function
is not inlined, but the unlock function is. I have no objection to make
them both as non-inlined functions, if you think that is the right move.
Regards,
Longman
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other files
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:31:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <527A60E3.3000106@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1383679842.11046.298.camel@schen9-DESK>
On 11/05/2013 02:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 19:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead,
>>> + * users should call mcs_spin_lock().
>>> */
>>> -static noinline
>>> -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> +static inline
>>> +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> {
>>> struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
>>>
>> So why keep it in the header at all?
> I also made the suggestion originally of keeping both lock and unlock in
> mcs_spinlock.c. Wonder if Waiman decides to keep them in header
> because in-lining the unlock function makes execution a bit faster?
>
> Tim
>
I was following the example of the spinlock code where the lock function
is not inlined, but the unlock function is. I have no objection to make
them both as non-inlined functions, if you think that is the right move.
Regards,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-06 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1383670202.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
2013-11-05 17:42 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] MCS Lock: MCS lock code cleanup and optimizations Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 21:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-11-05 21:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-11-05 21:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-11-05 21:27 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 21:27 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 21:27 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] MCS Lock: optimizations and extra comments Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 18:37 ` Will Deacon
2013-11-05 18:37 ` Will Deacon
2013-11-05 19:21 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 19:21 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 21:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-05 21:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-06 1:25 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-06 1:25 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-06 11:30 ` Will Deacon
2013-11-06 11:30 ` Will Deacon
2013-11-06 14:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-11-06 14:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-11-06 14:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-11-06 18:22 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-06 18:22 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-06 18:22 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-06 19:13 ` Waiman Long
2013-11-06 19:13 ` Waiman Long
2013-11-06 19:13 ` Waiman Long
2013-11-06 5:44 ` Figo.zhang
2013-11-06 5:44 ` Figo.zhang
2013-11-06 12:20 ` Will Deacon
2013-11-06 12:20 ` Will Deacon
2013-11-06 17:05 ` Waiman Long
2013-11-06 17:05 ` Waiman Long
2013-11-05 17:42 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other files Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 17:42 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 18:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-05 18:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-05 18:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-05 19:30 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 19:30 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-05 19:30 ` Tim Chen
2013-11-06 15:31 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2013-11-06 15:31 ` Waiman Long
2013-11-06 15:31 ` Waiman Long
2013-11-06 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-06 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-11-06 16:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=527A60E3.3000106@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=walken@google.com \
/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.