Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:00:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, monstr@monstr.eu, git@xilinx.com,
        arnd@arndb.de, Stefan Asserhall <stefan.asserhall@xilinx.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] microblaze: Implement architecture spinlock
Message-ID: <20200213080043.GF14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1581522136.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com>
 <ed53474e9ca6736353afd10ebe7ea98e4c6c459e.1581522136.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com>
 <20200212154756.GY14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5315513c-2492-6bb7-2961-b249851b2051@xilinx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5315513c-2492-6bb7-2961-b249851b2051@xilinx.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 12. 02. 20 16:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > 
> > That's a test-and-set spinlock if I read it correctly. Why? that's the
> > worst possible spinlock implementation possible.
> 
> This was written by Stefan and it is aligned with recommended
> implementation. What other options do we have?

A ticket lock should be simple enough; ARM has one you can borrow from.

The problem with TaS spinlocks is that they're unfair and exhibit
horrible starvation issues.