From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:02:24 +0000 Subject: [patch 17/19] softirq: Replace barrier() with cpu_relax() in tasklet_unlock_wait() Message-Id: <20201113141734.660734753@linutronix.de> List-Id: References: <20201113140207.499353218@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: LKML Cc: Marc Zyngier , Rich Felker , Catalin Marinas , Paul McKenney , Arnd Bergmann , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Richard Weinberger , Frederic Weisbecker , Valentin Schneider , Jeff Dike , Russell King , Yoshinori Sato , "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Helge Deller , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Anton Ivanov A barrier() in a tight loop which waits for something to happen on a remote CPU is a pointless exercise. Replace it with cpu_relax() which allows HT siblings to make progress. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner --- include/linux/interrupt.h | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h @@ -668,7 +668,8 @@ static inline void tasklet_unlock(struct static inline void tasklet_unlock_wait(struct tasklet_struct *t) { - while (test_bit(TASKLET_STATE_RUN, &(t)->state)) { barrier(); } + while (test_bit(TASKLET_STATE_RUN, &(t)->state)) + cpu_relax(); } #else #define tasklet_trylock(t) 1