From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
 update of refcount
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 18:16:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+icZUX--Yo6TMGiL5ipeQmD67Psn0LuYfT5vQw-0_hjyp6o-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1375758759-29629-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	<1375758759-29629-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	<CA+55aFyMeK+bAvkqi_HpShqm7Des6uriVP_xp+BJqD0ASCVL0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1377751465.4028.20.camel@pasglop>
	<20130829070012.GC27322@gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFwzY_1tD5vmaDgwAGLXNSGw4XS8vEp9vOpN6NPm5+Mxow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFx1oq7+jce8vLWRitASVMugCojYe3gmhXwhLx4K9Au3XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFyq7dJnm6tfn12hLOw5qKLW2RXRFERHgZO-sOOnUmjd3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52200DAE.2020303@hp.com>
	<CA+55aFyhTR15GBS4VNoRkcFyubEJU7a+Pzd-6VZeKoU8qB0q5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+icZUX3zQEWDoaXk0RMKmbQhDRo0Z7jGZ=9tJu1gZWvGodMkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+icZUUDKExRW3iNXj6jTs8A4DwQNaWvPuUfV5_ExXNPzq=+rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFxvEjdEFK0dXn783eVN0PEXVhb5k8OnrbxSWDpXgyTwWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+icZUXcn6-A+AW5bu_pfRdOcScsNyn3-OZe6n93S5NUEzHtcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130830121227.3915ffb3@gandalf.local.home>
Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130830121227.3915ffb3@gandalf.local.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:38:47 +0200
> Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> A Samsung series-5 ultrabook.
>>
>> $ grep "model name" /proc/cpuinfo | uniq
>> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2467M CPU @ 1.60GHz
>
> I believe the number of CPUs is more important. But as this is an
> ultrabook, I doubt that is very high.
>

Fantastic Four.

> Now I know this isn't going to be popular, but I'll suggest it anyway.
> What about only implementing the lockref locking when CPUs are greater
> than 7, 7 or less will still use the normal optimized spinlocks.
>

I have seen that spinlock-lockref stuff is more important on that
monster-machines.
It's good to see it does not break "smaller" systems.

- Sedat -