On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 10:43:24AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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? > > Once everyone agrees I can apply it to the locking tree. I think PeterZ's was the > only objection? Oleg wasn't all that happy, either, but he did supply the relevant patch. > > 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(). > > Can try it next week after some testing - let's see how busy things get for Linus > in the merge window? Sounds good! Either way is fine with me. Thanx, Paul
