On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Heiko Carstens
wrote:
>
> Maybe cpu_relax_spin() ? However that doesn't sound much better as well.
"cpu_relax_lowlatency()", perhaps? Naming it for what the use is
("relax, but only if you can do it with very low latency")
Linus
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:06:55AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 08:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > While I like the general idea; does anyone have a better name for this?
> > So in particular, the difference is that on s390:
> >
> > cpu_relax()-
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:06:55AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 08:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
While I like the general idea; does anyone have a better name for this?
So in particular, the difference is that on s390:
cpu_relax()- yields the
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Heiko Carstens
heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Maybe cpu_relax_spin() ? However that doesn't sound much better as well.
cpu_relax_lowlatency(), perhaps? Naming it for what the use is
(relax, but only if you can do it with very low latency)
Linus
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 08:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso
> >
> > The arch_mutex_cpu_relax() function, introduced by 34b133f, is
> > hacky and ugly. It was added a few years ago to address the fact
> >
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 08:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
The arch_mutex_cpu_relax() function, introduced by 34b133f, is
hacky and ugly. It was added a few years ago to address the fact
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:43:46PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Monday 23 June 2014 12:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> >> b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
>
Hi Peter,
On Monday 23 June 2014 12:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
>> b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
>> index d99f9b3..8e1bf6b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
>>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> The arch_mutex_cpu_relax() function, introduced by 34b133f, is
> hacky and ugly. It was added a few years ago to address the fact
> that common cpu_relax() calls include yielding on s390, and thus
>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> index d99f9b3..8e1bf6b 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ unsigned long
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
index d99f9b3..8e1bf6b 100644
--- a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
+++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
@@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ unsigned long
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
The arch_mutex_cpu_relax() function, introduced by 34b133f, is
hacky and ugly. It was added a few years ago to address the fact
that common cpu_relax() calls include yielding on s390, and
Hi Peter,
On Monday 23 June 2014 12:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
index d99f9b3..8e1bf6b 100644
--- a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
+++
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:43:46PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Monday 23 June 2014 12:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
b/arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h
index
From: Davidlohr Bueso
The arch_mutex_cpu_relax() function, introduced by 34b133f, is
hacky and ugly. It was added a few years ago to address the fact
that common cpu_relax() calls include yielding on s390, and thus
impact the optimistic spinning functionality of mutexes. Nowadays
we use this
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
The arch_mutex_cpu_relax() function, introduced by 34b133f, is
hacky and ugly. It was added a few years ago to address the fact
that common cpu_relax() calls include yielding on s390, and thus
impact the optimistic spinning functionality of mutexes. Nowadays
16 matches
Mail list logo