From: Christian Borntraeger
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:08:54 +0200
> On 10/21/2016 04:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Christian Borntraeger
>> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:58:53 +0200
>>
>>> For spinning loops people did often use barrier() or cpu_relax().
>>> For most architectures cpu_relax a
On 10/21/2016 04:57 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christian Borntraeger
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:58:53 +0200
>
>> For spinning loops people did often use barrier() or cpu_relax().
>> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on
>> some architectures cpu_relax can add som
From: Christian Borntraeger
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:58:53 +0200
> For spinning loops people did often use barrier() or cpu_relax().
> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on
> some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. For example on s390
> cpu_relax gives up t
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Christian Borntraeger (5):
> processor.h: introduce cpu_relax_yield
> stop_machine: yield CPU during stop machine
> s390: make cpu_relax a barrier again
> Remove cpu_relax_lowlatency users
> remove cpu_relax_lowlaten
For spinning loops people did often use barrier() or cpu_relax().
For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on
some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. For example on s390
cpu_relax gives up the time slice to the hypervisor. On power cpu_relax
tries to give some of th
5 matches
Mail list logo