From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aquini@redhat.com,
walken@google.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:47:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50D52D4B.9040702@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121222031433.GE27621@home.goodmis.org>
On 12/21/2012 10:14 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> OK, I replied here before reading patch 3 (still reviewing it). Why have
> this patch at all? Just to test if you broke something between this and
> patch 3? Or perhaps patch 3 may not get accepted? In that case, you
> would still need a comment.
>
> Either explicitly state that this patch is just a stepping stone for
> patch 3, and will either be accepted or rejected along with patch 3. Or
> keep it as a stand alone patch and add comments as such. Or just get rid
> of it all together.
I will document this patch better, explaining that it is
a stepping stone, that the number 50 is likely to be
wrong for many systems, and that the next patch fixes
things, using this text in the changelog:
The number 50 is likely to be wrong for many setups, and
this patch is mostly to illustrate the concept of proportional
backup. The next patch automatically tunes the delay value.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-22 3:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-21 23:49 [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2012-12-21 23:50 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] x86,smp: move waiting on contended lock out of line Rik van Riel
2012-12-22 3:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22 4:40 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-22 4:48 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-23 22:52 ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-21 23:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2012-12-22 3:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22 3:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22 3:47 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2012-12-22 4:44 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-23 22:55 ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-21 23:51 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2012-12-21 23:56 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] " Rik van Riel
2012-12-22 0:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22 2:43 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22 0:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22 2:57 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22 3:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22 3:44 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22 3:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22 3:50 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-26 19:10 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-26 19:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-26 19:51 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-27 6:07 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-27 14:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 14:35 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-27 18:41 ` Jan Beulich
2012-12-27 19:09 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-03 9:05 ` Jan Beulich
2013-01-03 13:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 13:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 15:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 16:10 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 16:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 17:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 18:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 19:31 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-29 0:42 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-29 10:27 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-03 18:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22 0:47 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] " David Daney
2012-12-22 2:51 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22 3:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22 3:58 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-23 23:08 ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-22 5:42 ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-22 14:32 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-02 0:06 ` ticket spinlock proportional backoff experiments Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-02 0:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86,smp: simplify __ticket_spin_lock Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-02 15:31 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-02 0:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Michel Lespinasse
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=50D52D4B.9040702@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=aquini@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=walken@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).