Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:31 PM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There's not much "simultaneous" in the SMT on ia64.

Oh, I forgot about the whole SoEMT fiasco.

Yeah, that might make ia64 act a bit differently here.

But I don't think anybody cares any more, so I don't think that merits
making this a per-architecture choice.

The s390 people hated cpu_relax() here, but for them it was really
because it was bad *everywhere*, and they just made it a no-op (see
commit 22b6430d3665 "locking/core, s390: Make cpu_relax() a barrier
again"). There had been a (failed) attempt at "cpu_relax_lowlatency()"
for the s390 issues.

                  Linus



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux