From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: Allow multiple spinning readers
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:41:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160401104119.GA3604@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160401103143.GJ3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > >>However, if we allow a limited number of readers to spin on the
> > >>lock simultaneously, we can eliminates some of the reader-to-reader
> > >>latencies at the expense of a bit more cacheline contention and
> > >>probably more power consumption.
> > >So the embedded people might not like that much.
> >
> > It could be. It is always a compromise.
>
> So ARM is the only one that currently waits without spinning and could
> care; so Will might have an opinion. One 'solution' would be to make
> this an optional feature.
Well, perhaps we could built this using the cmp-and-wait structure we spoke
about a couple of months back. What happened with that? Is there something I
need to go implement for ARM/arm64?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-01 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-20 3:21 [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: Allow multiple spinning readers Waiman Long
2016-03-20 10:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-22 2:21 ` Waiman Long
2016-03-29 20:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-31 22:12 ` Waiman Long
2016-04-01 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 10:41 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-04-01 10:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 11:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2016-04-01 19:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20160401104119.GA3604@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=doug.hatch@hpe.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hpe.com \
--cc=waiman.long@hpe.com \
/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