From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Noam Camus <noamc@ezchip.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:22:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160309122217.GK6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56E00EB6.4000201@synopsys.com>
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > I did not follow through the maze, I think the few archs implementing
> > this simply do not include this file at all.
> >
> > I'll let the first person that cares about this worry about that :-)
>
> Ok - that's be me :-) although I really don't see much gains in case of ARC LLSC.
>
> For us, LD + BCLR + ST is very similar to LLOCK + BCLR + SCOND atleast in terms of
> cache coherency transactions !
The win would be in not having to ever retry the SCOND. Although in this
case, the contending CPU would be doing reads -- which I assume will not
cause a SCOND to fail, so it might indeed not make any difference.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-08 14:30 [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic Vineet Gupta
2016-03-08 15:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-03-08 15:46 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-08 20:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2016-03-09 6:43 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 10:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 11:12 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 11:00 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 11:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 11:53 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 12:22 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-03-14 8:05 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-21 11:16 ` [tip:locking/urgent] bitops: Do not default to __clear_bit() for __clear_bit_unlock() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 13:22 ` [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic Vineet Gupta
2016-03-09 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-10 5:51 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-03-10 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-08 15:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=20160309122217.GK6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=jejb@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=noamc@ezchip.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).