Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220316232600.20419-1-palmer@rivosinc.com> <11364105.8ZH9dyz9j6@diego>
In-Reply-To: <11364105.8ZH9dyz9j6@diego>
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 15:24:28 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTS3C_GHvLnrep_V3pz4bUOBMO-Tc5v5BpEt7V1EQxF0jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Generic Ticket Spinlocks
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=C3=BCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc:     linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        jonas@southpole.se, stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi,
        shorne@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, jszhang@kernel.org,
        wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, openrisc@lists.librecores.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Tested-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 8:58 PM Heiko St=C3=BCbner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 17. M=C3=A4rz 2022, 00:25:55 CET schrieb Palmer Dabbelt:
> > Peter sent an RFC out about a year ago
> > <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YHbBBuVFNnI4kjj3@hirez.programming.kicks-=
ass.net/>,
> > but after a spirited discussion it looks like we lost track of things.
> > IIRC there was broad consensus on this being the way to go, but there
> > was a lot of discussion so I wasn't sure.  Given that it's been a year,
> > I figured it'd be best to just send this out again formatted a bit more
> > explicitly as a patch.
> >
> > This has had almost no testing (just a build test on RISC-V defconfig),
> > but I wanted to send it out largely as-is because I didn't have a SOB
> > from Peter on the code.  I had sent around something sort of similar in
> > spirit, but this looks completely re-written.  Just to play it safe I
> > wanted to send out almost exactly as it was posted.  I'd probably renam=
e
> > this tspinlock and tspinlock_types, as the mis-match kind of makes my
> > eyes go funny, but I don't really care that much.  I'll also go through
> > the other ports and see if there's any more candidates, I seem to
> > remember there having been more than just OpenRISC but it's been a
> > while.
> >
> > I'm in no big rush for this and given the complex HW dependencies I
> > think it's best to target it for 5.19, that'd give us a full merge
> > window for folks to test/benchmark it on their systems to make sure it'=
s
> > OK.  RISC-V has a forward progress guarantee so we should be safe, but
> > these can always trip things up.
>
> I've tested this on both the Qemu-Virt machine as well as the
> Allwinner Nezha board (with a D1 SoC).
>
> Both of those are of course not necessarily the best platforms
> for benchmarks I guess, as from what I gathered before I'd need
> need multiple cores to actually get interesting measurements when
> comparing different implementations. But at least everything that
> worked before still works with this series ;-)
>
>
> So, Series
> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
>
>
> Heiko
>
>


--=20
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/