[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170906130600.2dke3ntcw2i5fss2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 15:06:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jeremy@...p.org,
chrisw@...s-sol.org, akataria@...are.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:44:09AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Guys, please trim email.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
> >> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
> >> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.
> > I don't understand. What performance are you worried about. Native will
> > now do: "xor rax,rax; jnz some_cold_label" that's fairly trival code.
>
> It is not native that I am talking about. I am worry about VM with
> non-Xen/KVM hypervisor where virt_spin_lock() will actually be called.
> Now that function will become a callee-saved function call instead of
> being inlined into the native slowpath function.
But only if we actually end up using the test-and-set thing, because if
you have paravirt we end up using that.
And the test-and-set thing sucks anyway. But yes, you're right, that
case gets worse.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists