From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:06:42 -0400 > 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? Let's address the trylock vs. spin_lock thing later and use plain spin_lock for now. -- 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
