[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517595FA.800@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:56:42 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@...il.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Karen Noel <knoel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Preemptable Ticket Spinlock
On 04/22/2013 03:49 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 08:52 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> If the native spin_lock code has been called already at
>> that time, the native code would still need to be modified
>> to increment the ticket number by 2, so we end up with a
>> compatible value in each spin lock's .tickets field, and
>> prevent a deadlock after we switch over to the paravirt
>> variant.
>
> I thought the stuff already made it upstream, but apparently not; the
> lastest posting I'm aware of is here:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/2/105
>
> That stuff changes the normal ticket increment as well..
Jiannan,
It looks like the patch above could make a good patch
1 (or 2) in your patch series :)
--
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