Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:53:12 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 0/2] locking/qrwlock: Improve qrwlock performance
Message-ID: <20150716155312.GK26390@arm.com>
References: <1436459543-29126-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1436459543-29126-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1001
Lines: 29

Hi Waiman,

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> v1->v2:
>  - Take out patch 1 which had been merged to tip.
>  - Take out patch 4 as the change may impact light load performance
>  - Rebased to the latest tip branch
> 
> In converting some existing spinlocks to rwlock, it was found that
> the write lock slowpath performance isn't as good as the qspinlock.
> This patch series tries to improve qrwlock performance to close the
> gap between qspinlock and qrwlock.
> 
> With this patch series in place, we can start converting some spinlocks
> back to rwlocks where it makes sense and the lock size increase isn't
> a concern.

Both of these patches look fine to me:

  Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Cheers,

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/