On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:06:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 06:24:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > When contended, architectures may be able to reduce the polling overhead > > in ways which aren't expressible using a simple relax() primitive. > > > > This patch allows architectures to override the use of > > cpu_relax_lowlatency() in the qrwlock code and also implement their own > > unlock macros in case explicit signalling is required to wake up a > > `relaxed' CPU spinning on an unlock event. > > No real objection, but could you do this _after_ you've converted > AARGH64 to use the normal qrwlock, such that you can show the benefit > with numbers? Sure, although the biggest gain may be in the form of reduced power consumption, which I can't easily measure on my development platform. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
