[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:41:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, shai@...lemp.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, ido@...ery.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/mm] x86/pat: Avoid contention on cpa_lock if possible
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:18 -0700, tip-bot for Shai Fultheim wrote:
>
> > [ I absolutely hate these locking patterns ... yet I have no better idea. Maybe the gents on Cc: ... ]
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
>
> Oh yuck, this is vile..
>
> static struct static_key scale_mp_trainwreck = STATIC_KEY_INIT_FALSE;
>
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(_cpa_lock);
>
> static inline void cpa_lock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> static inline void cpa_unlock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> And then use cpa_{,un}lock(), and the scale-mp guys can
> static_key_slow_inc(&scale_mp_trainwreck).
>
> [ and yes I hate those jump_label names ... but I'm not wanting
> to go through another round of bike-shed painting. ]
ok.
Another problem this patch has is inadequate testing:
arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c:798:2: error: implicit declaration of
function ‘is_vsmp_box’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
So I'm removing it from tip:x86/mm for now.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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