On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:56 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:45 PM Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:46 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On NUMA system, the performance of qspinlock is better than generic > > > spinlock. Below is the UnixBench test results on a 8 nodes (4 cores > > > per node, 32 cores in total) machine. You are still missing an explanation here about why this is safe to do. Is there are architectural guarantee for forward progress, or do you rely on specific microarchitectural behavior? > > Could you base the patch on [1]? > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220621144920.2945595-2-guoren@xxxxxxxxxx/raw > I found that whether we use qspinlock or tspinlock, we always use > qrwlock, so maybe it is better like this? > > #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS > #include <asm/qspinlock.h> > #else > #include <asm-generic/tspinlock.h> > #endif > > #include <asm/qrwlock.h> Yes, that seems better, but I would go one step further and include asm-generic/qspinlock.h in place of asm/qspinlock.h here: The two architectures that have a custom asm/qspinlock.h also have a custom asm/spinlock.h, so they have no need to include asm-generic/spinlock.h either. Arnd
