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>
In-Reply-To: <20220316232600.20419-1-palmer@rivosinc.com>
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:40:18 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTQdhnxJ3gaJDCnd7-boz83GMxaW7tTNaA9hSHs92L_Zig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Generic Ticket Spinlocks
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, jszhang@kernel.org,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        openrisc@lists.librecores.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Palmer,

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

Could help involve the below patch in your series?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arch/20220318083421.2062259-1-guoren@kernel.org/T/#u

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:14 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
> 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 rename
> 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.


-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

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