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? -- 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
