[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151220195944.GT6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:59:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] new barrier type for paravirt (was Re: [PATCH]
virtio_ring: use smp_store_mb)
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 05:07:19PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> Very much +1 for fixing this.
>
> Those names would be fine, but they do add yet another set of options in
> an already-complicated area.
>
> An alternative might be to have the regular smp_{w,r,}mb() not revert
> back to nops if CONFIG_PARAVIRT, or perhaps if pvops have detected a
> non-native environment. (I don't know how feasible this suggestion is,
> however.)
So a regular SMP kernel emits the LOCK prefix and will patch it out with
a DS prefix (iirc) when it finds but a single CPU. So for those you
could easily do this.
However an UP kernel will not emit the LOCK and do no patching.
So if you're willing to make CONFIG_PARAVIRT depend on CONFIG_SMP or
similar, this is doable.
I don't see people going to allow emitting the LOCK prefix (and growing
the kernel text size) for UP kernels.
--
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