From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A030F1A0274 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:38:36 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:38:25 -0400 From: Sowmini Varadhan To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 RFC 1/3] sparc: Break up monolithic iommu table/lock into finer graularity pools and lock Message-ID: <20150330213825.GN26127@oracle.com> References: <1427685844.20500.66.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20150330103824.GA26127@oracle.com> <1427712943.20500.77.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20150330130116.GE26127@oracle.com> <20150330211525.GM26127@oracle.com> <1427750937.20500.99.camel@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1427750937.20500.99.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: aik@au1.ibm.com, anton@au1.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On (03/31/15 08:28), Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Provided that the IB test doesn't come up with a significant difference, > I definitely vote for the simpler version of doing a normal spin_lock. sounds good. let me wait for the confirmation from IB, and I'll send out patchv8 soon after. FWIW, I'm ok with all the other comments- thanks for the feedback. --Sowmini