[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55CD4D54.2090008@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:07:16 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
_Q_SLOW_VAL
On 08/08/2015 02:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:17:56PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> If _Q_SLOW_VAL has been set, the vCPU state must have been vcpu_hashed.
>> The extra check at the end of __pv_queued_spin_unlock() is unnecessary
>> and so is removed.
> This is half the patch it should be.
>
> Because if the load is not needed, then the store is not either, and
> then there's the comments to update.
Sorry for the late reply.
That is true. Setting state to vcpu_hashed in pv_wait_head() isn't
really necessary. I kept it there for consistency sake as the state may
be set to vcpu_hashed in pv_kick_node(). We can certainly take that out.
BTW, could you also review the other patches when you have time? I am
coming to the LinuxCon/Plumbers next week. Hopefully, I can chat with
you again.
Cheers,
Longman
--
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