On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:31:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: [ . . . ] > In fact I'd argue that any future high performance spin_unlock_wait() user is > probably better off open coding the unlock-wait poll loop (and possibly thinking > hard about eliminating it altogether). If such patterns pop up in the kernel we > can think about consolidating them into a single read-only primitive again. I would like any reintroduction to include a header comment saying exactly what the consolidated primitive actually does and does not do. ;-) > I.e. I think the proposed changes are doing no harm, and the unavailability of a > generic primitive does not hinder future optimizations either in any significant > fashion. I will have a v3 with updated comments from Manfred. Thoughts on when/where to push this? The reason I ask is if this does not go in during this merge window, I need to fix the header comment on spin_unlock_wait(). Thanx, Paul
