On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 5:06 AM Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 在 2021/7/25 上午3:24, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
> > - If I remember correctly, there were some concerns about whether using
> > this information for picking the qspinlock implementation is a good idea.
> We've checked previous attempt made by Guo Ren about
> ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32[1], the concerns of potential livelock
> do exist.
>
> So in this patch Huacai took another, dropping the whole standalone
> tailing logic to remove the usage of sub-word xchg. It could be understood as
> partial revert of 69f9cae9 ("locking/qspinlock: Optimize for smaller NR_CPUS")
> [2] on these architectures.
Ok, I see. Let's see what Peter thinks about it.
Arnd
