Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031837AbbKFE26 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:28:58 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:37183 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031193AbbKFE25 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:28:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <563B8E85.6090104@hpe.com> References: <563B8E85.6090104@hpe.com> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:28:56 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core From: Ling Ma To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 827 Lines: 25 Longman Thanks for your suggestion. We will look for real scenario to test, and could you please introduce some benchmarks on spinlock ? Regards Ling > > Your new spinlock code completely change the API and the semantics of the > existing spinlock calls. That requires changes to thousands of places > throughout the whole kernel. It also increases the size of the spinlock from > 4 bytes to 32 bytes. It is basically a no-go. > > However, if you can improve the performance within the existing API and > locking semantics, it will be much more acceptable. > > Cheers, > Longman -- 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/