From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@yandex.ru>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:37:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130828133700.GQ10002@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130828091530.7ffe9ad0@gandalf.local.home>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 09:15:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Are you for the smp_mb__after_spin_unlock() ?
Sure, if the performance gains of having it out-weight the added
complexity of having it :-)
Nice non answer methinks, no? Muwhaha. To me having one more or less
'conditional' full mb primitive really doesn't matter anymore.
I'm presuming you're doing this for performance gains on anything other
than x86 though, as x86 has a non-atomic unlock and thus always requires
the full barrier thing here (yes yes I know ia32 still exists but people
should really really really kill that thing already).
> I'm getting confused by who is arguing what :-)
Hehe ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-28 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <15321377012704@web8h.yandex.ru>
2013-08-21 3:01 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-21 15:51 ` Alexander Fyodorov
2013-08-22 1:04 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-22 13:28 ` Alexander Fyodorov
2013-08-26 20:14 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-27 12:09 ` Alexander Fyodorov
[not found] ` <20130827091436.3d5971a0@gandalf.local.home>
2013-08-27 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-28 1:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-28 8:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-28 12:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-08-28 13:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-28 13:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-08-28 13:37 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-08-29 15:24 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-29 17:03 ` Alexander Fyodorov
2013-08-30 3:16 ` Waiman Long
2013-08-30 8:15 ` Alexander Fyodorov
2013-08-13 18:41 [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock Waiman Long
2013-08-13 18:41 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130828133700.GQ10002@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=halcy@yandex.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome