[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160929103133.GW5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:31:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel-request@...ts.xenproject.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
will.deacon@....com, kernellwp@...il.com, jgross@...e.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:23:19PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 09/29/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:45:10AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> >> change from v2:
> >> no code change, fix typos, update some comments
> >>
> >> change from v1:
> >> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted
> >> skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro.
> >> add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner.
> >> add more comments
> >> thanks boqun and Peter's suggestion.
> >>
> >> This patch set aims to fix lock holder preemption issues.
> >
> > So I really like the concept, but I would also really like to see
> > support for more hypervisors included before we can move forward with
> > this.
> >
> > Please consider s390 and (x86/arm) KVM. Once we have a few, more can
> > follow later, but I think its important to not only have PPC support for
> > this.
>
> Actually the s390 preemted check via sigp sense running is available for
> all hypervisors (z/VM, LPAR and KVM) which implies everywhere as you can no
> longer buy s390 systems without LPAR.
>
> As Heiko already pointed out we could simply use a small inline function
> that calls cpu_is_preempted from arch/s390/lib/spinlock (or smp_vcpu_scheduled from smp.c)
Sure, and I had vague memories of Heiko's email. This patch set however
completely fails to do that trivial hooking up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists