Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] powerpc: queued spinlocks and rwlocks | From | Waiman Long <> | Date | Wed, 8 Jul 2020 19:54:34 -0400 |
| |
On 7/8/20 4:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 03:57:06PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Yes, powerpc could certainly get more performance out of the slow >> paths, and then there are a few parameters to tune. > Can you clarify? The slow path is already in use on ARM64 which is weak, > so I doubt there's superfluous serialization present. And Will spend a > fair amount of time on making that thing guarantee forward progressm, so > there just isn't too much room to play. > >> We don't have a good alternate patching for function calls yet, but >> that would be something to do for native vs pv. > Going by your jump_label implementation, support for static_call should > be fairly straight forward too, no? > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200624153024.794671356@infradead.org > Speaking of static_call, I am also looking forward to it. Do you have an idea when that will be merged?
Cheers, Longman
|  |