Hi Peter, OK, I think I understand your point. If you think the performance of bit_spinlock doesn't matter, Let's keep the current status.
Thanks, Gao Xiang On 2018/11/6 20:33, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 2018/11/6 20:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:36:41PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>> IMO, to use wrapped up function for the detailed scenario could be better >>> than >>> open-coded all the time (eg. do cpu_relax(); while(...)) since it could be >>> optimizated even more for the specific architecture... >> That's the whole point though; if this actually matters, you're doing it >> wrong. > > I cannot fully understand your point...Sorry about my English... > > To the point, you mean it is much better to fix it as Will suggested before or > leave the matter as it is since the performance of bit_spinlock itself > doesn't matter? > > Thanks in advance. > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang >
