[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4C2B72950200007800008DBA@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:36:37 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"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 2/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks -
Xen implementation
>>> On 30.06.10 at 16:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 04:03 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Afaics the unlock still involves a function call *in all cases* with
>> pvops spinlocks, whereas it's a single inline instruction without.
>>
>
> No. The unlock path can see if there are any further waiters by looking
> at the ticket in the, and only do the kick call if there are some.
Are we perhaps talking about different things? I'm referring to
static __always_inline void arch_spin_unlock(struct arch_spinlock *lock)
{
PVOP_VCALL1(pv_lock_ops.spin_unlock, lock);
}
which is an indirect call which, as I understand it, gets replaced
with a direct one at runtime. But it remains to be a call (as opposed
to being a single inc instructions without CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS).
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