[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0901091815140.24105@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:40:31 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well, at least we do unless you enable that broken paravirt support.
> > I'm not at all clear on why CONFIG_PARAVIRT wants to use inferior
> > locks, but I don't much care.
> Because the virtual cpu that has the ticket might not get scheduled for
> a while, even though another vcpu with a spinner is scheduled.
> The whole (para)virt is a nightmare in that respect.
Hmm, are we in fact really using byte locks in CONFIG_PARAVIRT situation?
Where are we actually setting pv_lock_ops.spin_lock pointer to point to
__byte_spin_lock?
Such initialization seems to happen only in paravirt_use_bytelocks()
function, but my blind eyes prevent me from finding a callsite from which
this function would eventually get called.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists