Hi, Am Donnerstag, 17. März 2022, 00:25:55 CET schrieb Palmer Dabbelt: > Peter sent an RFC out about a year ago > <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YHbBBuVFNnI4kjj3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/>, > but after a spirited discussion it looks like we lost track of things. > IIRC there was broad consensus on this being the way to go, but there > was a lot of discussion so I wasn't sure. Given that it's been a year, > I figured it'd be best to just send this out again formatted a bit more > explicitly as a patch. > > This has had almost no testing (just a build test on RISC-V defconfig), > but I wanted to send it out largely as-is because I didn't have a SOB > from Peter on the code. I had sent around something sort of similar in > spirit, but this looks completely re-written. Just to play it safe I > wanted to send out almost exactly as it was posted. I'd probably rename > this tspinlock and tspinlock_types, as the mis-match kind of makes my > eyes go funny, but I don't really care that much. I'll also go through > the other ports and see if there's any more candidates, I seem to > remember there having been more than just OpenRISC but it's been a > while. > > I'm in no big rush for this and given the complex HW dependencies I > think it's best to target it for 5.19, that'd give us a full merge > window for folks to test/benchmark it on their systems to make sure it's > OK. RISC-V has a forward progress guarantee so we should be safe, but > these can always trip things up. I've tested this on both the Qemu-Virt machine as well as the Allwinner Nezha board (with a D1 SoC). Both of those are of course not necessarily the best platforms for benchmarks I guess, as from what I gathered before I'd need need multiple cores to actually get interesting measurements when comparing different implementations. But at least everything that worked before still works with this series ;-) So, Series Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> Heiko
