Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:14:24 +0100
From:   Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, nrb@linux.ibm.com,
        nsg@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] s390: mm: convert pgste locking functions to C
Message-ID: <ZXBzsCT5vaufHGIZ@li-008a6a4c-3549-11b2-a85c-c5cc2836eea2.ibm.com>
References: <20231205173252.62305-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
 <ZXA4XkU0M1BZ5R5k@li-008a6a4c-3549-11b2-a85c-c5cc2836eea2.ibm.com>
 <20231206091541.6897-A-hca@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231206091541.6897-A-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 10:15:41AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 10:01:18AM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:32:52PM +0100, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > ...
> > > +	do {
> > > +		value = __atomic64_or_barrier(PGSTE_PCL_BIT, ptr);
> > 
> > Would it make sense to cpu_relax() here, e.g with a follow-up patch?
> 
> No, because cpu_relax() is a no-op on our architecture (besides that it
> translates to barrier(); but __atomic64_or_barrier() obviously comes also
> with barrier() semantics).
> 
> We used to do diag 0x44 with cpu_relax() but that caused many performance
> problems, therefore we removed diag 0x44 completely from the kernel quite
> some time ago.
> 
> See also commit 1b68ac8678a8 ("s390: remove last diag 0x44 caller").

Thanks for the clarification!

Applied.