From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
dhowells@redhat.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Memory transaction instructions
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:08:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1966767.1673878095@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiRm+Z613bHt2d=N1yWJAiDiQVXkh0dN8z02yA_JS-rew@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Linus,
I'm not sure how relevant it is to the topic, but I seem to remember you
having a go at implementing spinlocks with x86_64 memory transaction
instructions a while back. Do you have any thoughts on whether these
instructions are ever likely to become something we can use?
I was looking specifically at the skbuff queue stuff which does {
spin_lock_irq, add to list, inc count, spin_unlock_irq } and thinking that
might be a good place to use such a thing.
David
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
tony.luck@intel.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Memory transaction instructions
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:08:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1966767.1673878095@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiRm+Z613bHt2d=N1yWJAiDiQVXkh0dN8z02yA_JS-rew@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Linus,
I'm not sure how relevant it is to the topic, but I seem to remember you
having a go at implementing spinlocks with x86_64 memory transaction
instructions a while back. Do you have any thoughts on whether these
instructions are ever likely to become something we can use?
I was looking specifically at the skbuff queue stuff which does {
spin_lock_irq, add to list, inc count, spin_unlock_irq } and thinking that
might be a good place to use such a thing.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-16 14:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-12 23:36 lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:30 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 0:30 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 0:30 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 0:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 0:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 7:55 ` ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax) Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 7:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 7:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 16:17 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:03 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04 ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 0:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 0:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 0:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16 9:42 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:42 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:42 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:41 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:41 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:41 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 9:40 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:40 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:40 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:37 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:37 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:37 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:32 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:32 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 9:32 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 10:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 1:12 ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 1:12 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 1:12 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 4:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 4:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 4:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 9:46 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13 9:46 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13 9:46 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13 3:20 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 3:20 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 3:20 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 4:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 5:36 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 5:36 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 5:36 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-16 14:08 ` David Howells [this message]
2023-01-16 14:08 ` Memory transaction instructions David Howells
2023-01-16 15:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18 9:05 ` David Howells
2023-01-18 9:05 ` David Howells
2023-01-18 9:05 ` David Howells
2023-01-19 1:41 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19 1:41 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19 1:41 ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 10:23 ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 18:44 ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1966767.1673878095@warthog.procyon.org.uk \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jan.glauber@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.