[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <780c50a0-160b-24e3-a5b2-6685953882e5@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:59:14 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
x86@...nel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc: 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, peterz@...radead.org,
longman@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] guard virt_spin_lock() with a static key
Ping?
On 06/09/17 19:36, Juergen Gross wrote:
> With virt_spin_lock() being guarded by a static key the bare metal case
> can be optimized by patching the call away completely. In case a kernel
> running as a guest it can decide whether to use paravitualized
> spinlocks, the current fallback to the unfair test-and-set scheme, or
> to mimic the bare metal behavior.
>
> V3:
> - remove test for hypervisor environment from virt_spin_lock(9 as
> suggested by Waiman Long
>
> V2:
> - use static key instead of making virt_spin_lock() a pvops function
>
> Juergen Gross (2):
> paravirt/locks: use new static key for controlling call of
> virt_spin_lock()
> paravirt,xen: correct xen_nopvspin case
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 11 ++++++++++-
> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 6 ++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 ++
> arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c | 2 ++
> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 4 ++++
> 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists