From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc: queued spinlocks and rwlocks Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 19:54:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200706043540.1563616-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <24f75d2c-60cd-2766-4aab-1a3b1c80646e@redhat.com> <1594101082.hfq9x5yact.astroid@bobo.none> <20200708084106.GE597537@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20200708084106.GE597537@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra , Nicholas Piggin Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Anton Blanchard , Boqun Feng , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Will Deacon List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 7/8/20 4:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 03:57:06PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Yes, powerpc could certainly get more performance out of the slow >> paths, and then there are a few parameters to tune. > Can you clarify? The slow path is already in use on ARM64 which is weak, > so I doubt there's superfluous serialization present. And Will spend a > fair amount of time on making that thing guarantee forward progressm, so > there just isn't too much room to play. > >> We don't have a good alternate patching for function calls yet, but >> that would be something to do for native vs pv. > Going by your jump_label implementation, support for static_call should > be fairly straight forward too, no? > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200624153024.794671356@infradead.org > Speaking of static_call, I am also looking forward to it. Do you have an idea when that will be merged? Cheers, Longman