On 04/23/2014 06:24 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/23/2014 01:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:43:58PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/23/2014 10:56 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:23:43AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 05:40 PM
On 04/23/2014 01:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:43:58PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/23/2014 10:56 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:23:43AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 05:40 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 03:05 PM
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:43:58PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 10:56 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:23:43AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>On 04/18/2014 05:40 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>On 04/18/2014 03:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18,
On 04/23/2014 10:56 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:23:43AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 05:40 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 03:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:52:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
I am confused by your notatio
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:23:43AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 05:40 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> >On 04/18/2014 03:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:52:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>I am confused by your notation.
> >>Nah, I think I was confused :-) Make t
On 04/18/2014 05:40 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/18/2014 03:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:52:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
I am confused by your notation.
Nah, I think I was confused :-) Make the 1 _Q_LOCKED_VAL though, as
that's the proper constant to use.
Everyon
* Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 03:46 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Waiman Long wrote:
> >
> >>On 04/17/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +static __always_inline void
> +clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *
On 04/18/2014 03:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:52:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
I am confused by your notation.
Nah, I think I was confused :-) Make the 1 _Q_LOCKED_VAL though, as
that's the proper constant to use.
Everyone gets confused once in a while:-) I have pl
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:52:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I am confused by your notation.
Nah, I think I was confused :-) Make the 1 _Q_LOCKED_VAL though, as
that's the proper constant to use.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
On 04/18/2014 04:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:46:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/17/2014 11:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+struct __qspinlock {
+ union {
+ atomic_t val;
On 04/18/2014 03:46 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Waiman Long wrote:
On 04/17/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+static __always_inline void
+clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
+{
+ struct __qspinlock *l
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:46:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/17/2014 11:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>+struct __qspinlock {
> >>+ union {
> >>+ atomic_t val;
char bytes[4];
> >>+ struc
* Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/17/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>+static __always_inline void
> >>+clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
> >>+
> >>+
On 04/17/2014 11:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+static __always_inline void
+clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
+{
+ struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
+
+ ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1;
+}
@@
On 04/17/2014 11:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+struct __qspinlock {
+ union {
+ atomic_t val;
+ struct {
+#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
+ u16 locked_pending;
+
On 04/17/2014 11:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
@@ -48,6 +53,9 @@
* We can further change the first spinner to spin on a bit in the lock word
* instead of its node; whereby avoiding the need to carry a node from lock to
* unlock
On 04/17/2014 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+#if !defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN)&& !defined(__BIG_ENDIAN)
+#error "Missing either LITTLE_ENDIAN or BIG_ENDIAN definition."
+#endif
This seems entirely superfluous, I don't think a kernel bu
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +static __always_inline void
> +clear_pending_set_locked(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> +{
> + struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
> +
> + ACCESS_ONCE(l->locked_pending) = 1;
> +}
> @@ -157,8 +251,13 @@ static inline int
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +struct __qspinlock {
> + union {
> + atomic_t val;
> + struct {
> +#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + u16 locked_pending;
> + u16 tail;
> +#else
> +
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +#if !defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN) && !defined(__BIG_ENDIAN)
> +#error "Missing either LITTLE_ENDIAN or BIG_ENDIAN definition."
> +#endif
This seems entirely superfluous, I don't think a kernel build will go
anywhere if either is missing.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> @@ -48,6 +53,9 @@
> * We can further change the first spinner to spin on a bit in the lock word
> * instead of its node; whereby avoiding the need to carry a node from lock
> to
> * unlock, and preserving API.
> + *
> + * N.B. Th
21 matches
Mail list logo
