On (03/31/15 10:40), Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > > I've not heard back from the IB folks, but I'm going to make > a judgement call here and go with the spin_lock. *If* they > report some significant benefit from the trylock, probably > need to revisit this (and then probably start by re-exmaining > the hash function to avoid collisions, before resorting to > trylock). Having bravely said that.. the IB team informs me that they see a 10% degradation using the spin_lock as opposed to the trylock. one path going forward is to continue processing this patch-set as is. I can investigate this further, and later revise the spin_lock to the trylock, after we are certain that it is good/necessary. thoughts? --Sowmini -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
