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. -- 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
