Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1506033

Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency

Show all headers | View raw

From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:58:53 +0200

> For spinning loops people did 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 s390
> cpu_relax gives up the time slice to the hypervisor. On power cpu_relax
> tries to give some of the CPU to the neighbor threads. To reduce the
> latency another variant cpu_relax_lowlatency was introduced. Before this
> is used in more and more places, lets revert the logic of provide a new
> function cpu_relax_yield that can spend some time and for s390 yields
> the guest CPU.

Sparc64, fwiw, behaves similarly to powerpc.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-10-21 14:10 +0200
  [PATCH 1/5] processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-10-21 14:10 +0200
  [PATCH 4/5] Remove cpu_relax_lowlatency users Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-10-21 14:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-21 14:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2016-10-21 17:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-10-21 17:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] cpu_relax: introduce yield, remove lowlatency David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2016-10-21 17:20 +0200

csiph-web