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: <20220626201712.18064-1-ubizjak@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wiayOnntaOaQtjm4JXNoXjQdkyT3euMKNfn4ozHRk-oqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4bM0=oNvp5VAfHa59nBK3=f++PR3EB2B-Zds1ae+14dfA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFULd4bM0=oNvp5VAfHa59nBK3=f++PR3EB2B-Zds1ae+14dfA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:23:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiEQeRuAwHYOS6oBmewLBXg6Nd6xMPmMz2E75f660TDSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] locking/lockref/x86: Enable ARCH_USE_CMPXCHG_LOCKREF
 for X86_CMPXCHG64
To:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Cc:     "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 2:28 AM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> May I consider this message as a formal Acked-by: for the patch? I'll
> resubmit the patch with a commit message updated to reference
> lockref_put_not_zero instead of the removed lockref_get_or_lock.

Sure, sounds good to me.

It would be particularly nice if you can also see any change in
performance numbers - but that simply may not be possible.

32-bit x86 tends to also be very low core count, so the whole lockref
thing may or may not be measurable (no practical contention on the
lock), but the code certainly seems to get better.

             Linus