From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Noam Camus <noamc@ezchip.com>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161115133758.GV1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7f7850e4-c7bb-9cc1-2d65-a1555e97988a@de.ibm.com>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:19:53PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 01:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >> For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax().
> >> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on
> >> some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency.
> >> For example on power,sparc64 and arc, cpu_relax can shift the CPU
> >> towards other hardware threads in an SMT environment.
> >> On s390 cpu_relax does even more, it uses an hypercall to the
> >> hypervisor to give up the timeslice.
> >> In contrast to the SMT yielding this can result in larger latencies.
> >> In some places this latency is unwanted, so another variant
> >> "cpu_relax_lowlatency" was introduced. Before this is used in more
> >> and more places, lets revert the logic and provide a cpu_relax_yield
> >> that can be called in places where yielding is more important than
> >> latency. By default this is the same as cpu_relax on all architectures.
> >
> > Rather than having to update all these architectures in this way, can't
> > we put in some linux/*.h header something like:
> >
> > #ifndef cpu_relax_yield
> > #define cpu_relax_yield() cpu_relax()
> > #endif
> >
> > so only those architectures that need to do something need to be
> > modified?
>
> These patches are part of linux-next since a month or so, changing that
> would invalidate all the next testing. If people want that, I can certainly
> do that, though.
It's three weeks since you posted them. For one of those weeks (the
week you posted them) I was away, and missed them while catching up.
Sorry, but it sometimes takes a while to spot things amongst the
backlog, and normally takes some subsequent activity on the thread to
bring it back into view.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-15 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-25 9:03 [GIT PULL v2 0/5] cpu_relax: drop lowlatency, introduce yield Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-11-15 12:30 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-15 12:30 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-15 13:19 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-11-15 13:19 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-11-15 13:37 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2016-11-15 13:37 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-15 13:52 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-11-15 13:52 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` [GIT PULL v2 2/5] stop_machine: yield CPU during stop machine Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` [GIT PULL v2 3/5] s390: make cpu_relax a barrier again Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` [GIT PULL v2 4/5] processor.h: Remove cpu_relax_lowlatency users Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-10-25 9:03 ` [GIT PULL v2 5/5] processor.h: remove cpu_relax_lowlatency Christian Borntraeger
2016-11-16 12:11 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/core, arch: Remove cpu_relax_lowlatency() tip-bot for Christian Borntraeger
2016-11-15 10:15 ` [GIT PULL v2 0/5] cpu_relax: drop lowlatency, introduce yield Christian Borntraeger
2016-11-15 10:15 ` Christian Borntraeger
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=20161115133758.GV1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=noamc@ezchip.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).