From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:38:32 -0500 Message-ID: <52EA71F8.7070308@hp.com> References: <1390933151-1797-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <52EA139C.8040106@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52EA139C.8040106@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Raghavendra K T Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Andrew Morton , Michel Lespinasse , Andi Kleen , Rik van Riel , "Paul E. McKenney" , Linus Torvalds , George Spelvin , Tim Chen , Daniel J Blueman , Alexander Fyodorov , Aswin Chandramouleeswaran , Scott J Norton , Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 01/30/2014 03:55 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 01/28/2014 11:49 PM, Waiman Long wrote: >> v2->v3: >> - Simplify the code by using numerous mode only without an unfair=20 >> option. >> - Use the latest smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() barriers. >> - Move the queue spinlock code to kernel/locking. >> - Make the use of queue spinlock the default for x86-64 without us= er >> configuration. >> - Additional performance tuning. >> > > Could you please point me to any dependency patches I am missing? > I am getting the compilation error (latest linus tree with=20 > 9b0cd304f26b9fca140de15deeac2bf357d1f388) > > Got something like below > > make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'. > CHK include/config/kernel.release > CHK include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h > CHK include/generated/utsrelease.h > make[1]: Nothing to be done for `relocs'. > CC kernel/bounds.s > In file included from include/asm-generic/getorder.h:7:0, > from /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:71, > from /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:1= 7, > from /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:6, > from include/linux/atomic.h:4, > from include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h:22, > from=20 > /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock_types.h:15, > from=20 > /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h:331, > from /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h:65, > from /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/alternative.h= :8, > from /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h:16, > from include/linux/bitops.h:33, > from include/linux/kernel.h:10, > from include/asm-generic/bug.h:13, > from /test/master/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:38, > from include/linux/bug.h:4, > from include/linux/page-flags.h:9, > from kernel/bounds.c:9: > include/linux/log2.h: In function =91__ilog2_u32=92: > include/linux/log2.h:34:2: error: implicit declaration of function=20 > =91fls=92 [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-declaration] > include/linux/log2.h: In function =91__ilog2_u64=92: > include/linux/log2.h:42:2: error: implicit declaration of function=20 > =91fls64=92 [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-declaration] > include/linux/log2.h: In function =91__roundup_pow_of_two=92: > . > . > [trimmed] > The code will need to be compiled in either the latest linux tree as th= e=20 patches have dependency on some new memory barrier that are in 3.14.=20 Alternatively, you can compile with the latest tip tree. If you have already done that, please send me your config file so that = I=20 can reproduce the compilation error in my build environment. Thanks, Longman