On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:33:56PM +0800, 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?
Right, bit-spinlocks are terrible when contended. If the contended behaviour of bit-spinlocks start to matter, you've lost already.
