From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, anton@samba.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] spin loop arch primitives for busy waiting
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:59:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170406105958.196c6977@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170405.070157.871721909352646302.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 07:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:02:33 +1000
>
> > On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:43:05 -0700
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> But that depends on architectures having some pattern that we *can*
> >> abstract. Would some "begin/in-loop/end" pattern like the above be
> >> sufficient?
> >
> > Yes. begin/in/end would be sufficient for powerpc SMT priority, and
> > for x86, and it looks like sparc64 too. So we could do that if you
> > prefer.
>
> Sparc64 has two cases, on older chips we can induce a cpu thread yield
> with a special sequence of instructions, and on newer chips we have
> a bonafide pause instruction.
>
> So cpu_relax() all by itself pretty much works for us.
>
Thanks for taking a look. The default spin primitives should just
continue to do the right thing for you in that case.
Arm has a yield instruction, ia64 has a pause... No unusual
requirements that I can see.
If there are no objections, I'll send the arch-independent part of
this through the powerpc tree (the last one I sent, which follows
Linus' preferred pattern).
Thanks,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20170403081328.30266-1-npiggin@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CA+55aFx92vOh28CWp5zid8RzbM=5pO0Or51zS4D8M97L=69hHA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-03 23:50 ` [RFC][PATCH] spin loop arch primitives for busy waiting Nicholas Piggin
2017-04-04 0:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-04 3:02 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-04-04 4:11 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-04-05 14:01 ` David Miller
2017-04-06 0:59 ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2017-04-06 14:13 ` Will Deacon
2017-04-06 15:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-06 16:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-06 19:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 19:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-04-07 3:31 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-04-07 9:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-07 11:26 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-04-06 15:30 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-04-07 16:13 ` Will Deacon
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=20170406105958.196c6977@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
--to=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).