Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1636332 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-05 14:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-05-05 17:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-05 14:00 +0200
Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-05-05 14:30 +0200
Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-05-05 17:40 +0200
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: queued spinlocks and rw-locks |
| Message-ID | <tDK3T-1gk-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:28:09PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > I don't think > it's a real use case to have ticket spinlocks and queued rwlocks There's nothing wrong with that combination. In fact, we merged qrwlock much earlier than qspinlock.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tDKwW-1FQ-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1636332 |
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:53:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:28:09PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > I don't think > > it's a real use case to have ticket spinlocks and queued rwlocks > > There's nothing wrong with that combination. In fact, we merged qrwlock > much earlier than qspinlock. ... and that's almost certainly the direction we'll go on arm64 too, not least because the former are a lot easier to grok. Will
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tDNuO-3Aq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1636350 |
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 06:28:45PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:26:40PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:53:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:28:09PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > I don't think > > > > it's a real use case to have ticket spinlocks and queued rwlocks > > > > > > There's nothing wrong with that combination. In fact, we merged qrwlock > > > much earlier than qspinlock. > > > > ... and that's almost certainly the direction we'll go on arm64 too, not > > least because the former are a lot easier to grok. > > > > Will > > Hmm. Then I think I have to split patch 3 to rwlock and spinlock > parts, and allow user to enable them independently in config. To be honest, I'm going to spend some time looking at the qrwlock code again before I enable it for arm64, so I don't think you need to rush to resend patches since I suspect I'll have a few in the meantime. Will
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web