Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1522728
| From | Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield |
| Date | 2016-11-15 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sDM7T-5vB-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sw5U5-3BL-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sw5U6-3BL-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sDLbQ-4VX-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <sDLYe-5sD-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:19:53PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 11/15/2016 01:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). > >> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on > >> some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. > >> For example on power,sparc64 and arc, cpu_relax can shift the CPU > >> towards other hardware threads in an SMT environment. > >> On s390 cpu_relax does even more, it uses an hypercall to the > >> hypervisor to give up the timeslice. > >> In contrast to the SMT yielding this can result in larger latencies. > >> In some places this latency is unwanted, so another variant > >> "cpu_relax_lowlatency" was introduced. Before this is used in more > >> and more places, lets revert the logic and provide a cpu_relax_yield > >> that can be called in places where yielding is more important than > >> latency. By default this is the same as cpu_relax on all architectures. > > > > Rather than having to update all these architectures in this way, can't > > we put in some linux/*.h header something like: > > > > #ifndef cpu_relax_yield > > #define cpu_relax_yield() cpu_relax() > > #endif > > > > so only those architectures that need to do something need to be > > modified? > > These patches are part of linux-next since a month or so, changing that > would invalidate all the next testing. If people want that, I can certainly > do that, though. It's three weeks since you posted them. For one of those weeks (the week you posted them) I was away, and missed them while catching up. Sorry, but it sometimes takes a while to spot things amongst the backlog, and normally takes some subsequent activity on the thread to bring it back into view. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> - 2016-11-15 13:40 +0100
Re: [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-11-15 14:30 +0100
Re: [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> - 2016-11-15 14:40 +0100
Re: [GIT PULL v2 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-11-15 15:00 +0100
csiph-web