[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4C2B45080200007800008C97@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:22:16 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Ky Srinivasan" <KSrinivasan@...ell.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks
- improve yield behavior on Xen
>>> On 30.06.10 at 12:08, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> On 06/29/2010 04:35 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- 2.6.35-rc3-virt-spinlocks.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> +++ 2.6.35-rc3-virt-spinlocks/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> @@ -85,6 +85,15 @@ extern void virt_spin_unlock_stub(void);
>> # define UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX
>> #endif
>>
>> +static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_set_owner(arch_spinlock_t *lock,
>> + int owned)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ENLIGHTEN_SPINLOCKS
>> + if (owned)
>> + lock->owner = percpu_read(cpu_number);
>>
>
> Why not smp_processor_id()? Is this different in some way?
Including the respective header here just doesn't work due to
resulting cyclic dependencies.
Jan
--
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