[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C2B57CA.3070807@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:42:18 +0200
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
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 06/30/2010 04:36 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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).
>
Sorry, I'm referring to pv ticketlocks, not the current
PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS code. I agree the current PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
implementation is suboptimal and needs to be replaced with something
that's only called on the slow path. I just think the existing
paravirt_ops mechanism can be used to implement it rather than adding
something new.
J
--
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