linux-kernel - Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55F0E592.4050901@hpe.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Sep 2015 22:06:10 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance
 regression

On 09/04/2015 11:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:30:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Should I place the virt_spin_lock() thing under CONFIG_PARAVIRT (maybe
>> even _SPINLOCKS) such that only paravirt enabled kernels when ran on a
>> hypervisor that does not support paravirt patching (HyperV, VMware,
>> etc..) revert to the test-and-set?
> Ah, CONFIG_HYPERVISOR_GUEST seems fitting, that's a prerequisite for all
> the PARAVIRT options too.
>

Yes, I also used that in my queued unfair lock patch.

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/