On 11/15/2016 02:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:19:53PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> 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. > > It's three weeks since you posted them. For one of those weeks (the > week you posted them) I was away, and missed them while catching up. > Sorry, but it sometimes takes a while to spot things amongst the > backlog, and normally takes some subsequent activity on the thread to > bring it back into view. Absolutely no need to apologize. Thank you for doing the review and the proposal. I will do whatever is consensus, but since this looks like tip/locking material I will wait for Peter or Ingo to decide about the if and how. Christian -- 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
