Re: [PATCH 0/5] Generic Ticket Spinlocks

[Conor Dooley]

On 16/03/2022 23:25, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> Peter sent an RFC out about a year ago
> <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YHbBBuVFNnI4kjj3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/>,
> 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.

Is there a specific way you have been testing/benching things, or is it 
just a case of test what we ourselves care about?

Thanks,
Conor.

> RISC-V has a forward progress guarantee so we should be safe, but
> these can always trip things up.