[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <67764edc-4cb5-2404-ec90-6cb83a094298@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:44:42 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] guard virt_spin_lock() with a static key
On 09/25/2017 09:59 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> 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(-)
>>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists