search for: bytelocking

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 04/02/2014 04:35 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > >On 04/02/2014 10:32 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>N.B. Sorry for the duplicate. This patch series were resent as the > >>> original one was rejected by the vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 04/02/2014 04:35 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > >On 04/02/2014 10:32 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>N.B. Sorry for the duplicate. This patch series were resent as the > >>> original one was rejected by the vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 03:47:39PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > Ah nice. That could be spun out as a seperate patch to optimize the existing > ticket locks I presume. Yes I suppose we can do something similar for the ticket and patch in the right increment. We'd need to restructure the code a bit, but its not fundamentally impossible. We could equally apply the head hashing to

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 03:47:39PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > Ah nice. That could be spun out as a seperate patch to optimize the existing > ticket locks I presume. Yes I suppose we can do something similar for the ticket and patch in the right increment. We'd need to restructure the code a bit, but its not fundamentally impossible. We could equally apply the head hashing to

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:13:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 04/04/2014 12:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:57:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>On 04/03/2014 01:23 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>>On 04/02/2014 04:35 PM, Waiman Long wrote:

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:13:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 04/04/2014 12:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:57:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>On 04/03/2014 01:23 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>>On 04/02/2014 04:35 PM, Waiman Long wrote:

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:21:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 03:47:39PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > Ah nice. That could be spun out as a seperate patch to optimize the existing > > ticket locks I presume. > > Yes I suppose we can do something similar for the ticket and patch in > the right increment. We'd need to restructure the

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:21:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 03:47:39PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > Ah nice. That could be spun out as a seperate patch to optimize the existing > > ticket locks I presume. > > Yes I suppose we can do something similar for the ticket and patch in > the right increment. We'd need to restructure the

On 04/03/2014 01:23 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 04/02/2014 04:35 PM, Waiman Long wrote: >>> On 04/02/2014 10:32 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >>>>> N.B. Sorry for the duplicate. This patch series were resent as

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 17/06/2014 22:55, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha scritto: > >On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>From: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long at hp.com> > >> > >>This patch extracts the logic for the exchange of new and previous tail > >>code words into a new

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 17/06/2014 22:55, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha scritto: > >On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>From: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long at hp.com> > >> > >>This patch extracts the logic for the exchange of new and previous tail > >>code words into a new

On 04/04/2014 12:55 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:57:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 04/03/2014 01:23 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >>>> On 04/02/2014 04:35 PM, Waiman Long wrote: >>>>> On 04/02/2014 10:32 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

On 04/02/2014 10:32 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> N.B. Sorry for the duplicate. This patch series were resent as the >> original one was rejected by the vger.kernel.org list server >> due to long header. There is no change in content. >> >> v7->v8: >> - Remove one unneeded

On 04/02/2014 10:32 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> N.B. Sorry for the duplicate. This patch series were resent as the >> original one was rejected by the vger.kernel.org list server >> due to long header. There is no change in content. >> >> v7->v8: >> - Remove one unneeded

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Add minimal paravirt support. > > The code aims for minimal impact on the native case. Woot! > > On the lock side we add one jump label (asm_goto) and 4 paravirt > callee saved calls that default to NOPs. The only effects are the > extra NOPs and some pointless MOVs to accomodate the calling > convention.

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Add minimal paravirt support. > > The code aims for minimal impact on the native case. Woot! > > On the lock side we add one jump label (asm_goto) and 4 paravirt > callee saved calls that default to NOPs. The only effects are the > extra NOPs and some pointless MOVs to accomodate the calling > convention.

On 06/18/2014 09:50 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 17/06/2014 22:55, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha scritto: >>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> From: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long at hp.com> >>>> >>>> This patch extracts the logic for the

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:44:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 03/14/2014 04:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:05:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>On 03/13/2014 11:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:54:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>>+static inline void arch_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:44:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 03/14/2014 04:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:05:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>On 03/13/2014 11:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>>On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:54:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>>+static inline void arch_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:57:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 04/03/2014 01:23 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>On 04/02/2014 04:35 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>On 04/02/2014 10:32 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>>>On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: