[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <510FBCA9.4070700@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:50:33 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aquini@...hat.com, walken@...gle.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, knoel@...hat.com,
chegu_vinod@...com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 5/5] x86,smp: limit spinlock delay on virtual machines
On 01/26/2013 07:47 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 01:00:43PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> +void __init init_spinlock_delay(void)
>>> +{
>>> + if (x86_hyper)
>>> + max_spinlock_delay = MAX_SPINLOCK_DELAY_GUEST;
>>
>> I realize that you took existing code and extended it, but that
>> chunk of code looks pretty disgusting visually now - at minimum
>> it should be vertically aligned as most other kernel code does.
>>
>> The comment should also tell that the unit of these values is
>> 'spinlock-op loops' or so.
Will do.
> Also, with currently making PARAVIRT_GUEST optional, x86_hyper is maybe
> a bad choice of a variable to test.
>
> Maybe instead to this:
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST))
> ...
We need to know whether we are actually running on top of a
hypervisor, not whether we have the code compiled in to do
so.
After all, the majority of distribution kernels will have
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST set, but the majority of those kernels
will be running bare metal...
--
All rights reversed
--
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