From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Kevin Hao <haokexin@gmail.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] powerpc: use ticket spin lock for !CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:24:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150312152410.GA12372@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1426158807.17565.131.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:13:27PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 18:55 +0800, Kevin Hao wrote:
> > I know Torsten Duwe has tried to add the ticket spinlock for powerpc
> > one year ago [1]. But it make no progress due to the conflict between
OMG, time flies.
> > PPC_SPLPAR and lockref. We still don't find a better way to handle
> > this. But instead of waiting forever for a perfect solution, can't we
> > just use the ticket spinlock for the !CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR?
I was actually thinking about squeezing it all (incl. lockref) into 64 bits,
or making it a bit larger, keeping the holder outside the cache line, or ...
Then priorities shifted.
> I would do the ifdef'ing differently, something like
>
> CONFIG_PPC_HAS_LOCK_OWNER
>
> CONFIG_PPC_TICKET_LOCKS depends on !PPC_HAS_LOCK_OWNER
>
> and use these two in the code... with SPLPAR select'ing HAS_LOCK_OWNER
Or avoid ifdef'ing and give pseries its own, platform-specific lock implementation?
It's more work in the build framework but clearer in the C source. Just a though.
But generally, which platforms would benefit most from this change?
I must admit my access to hardware variety is somewhat limited ;-)
Torsten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-12 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-12 10:55 [RFC] powerpc: use ticket spin lock for !CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR Kevin Hao
2015-03-12 11:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2015-03-12 15:24 ` Torsten Duwe [this message]
2015-03-13 6:09 ` Kevin Hao
2015-03-13 7:07 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2015-03-13 5:59 ` Kevin Hao
2015-03-13 7:09 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-03-13 7:14 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2015-03-16 0:25 ` Sam Bobroff
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=20150312152410.GA12372@lst.de \
--to=duwe@lst.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=haokexin@gmail.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.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).