[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c36ed18-e59e-1ea3-28e0-414f88965761@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 18:01:10 -0400
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 2/2] x86/xen: Deprecate xen_nopvspin
On 11/01/2017 04:58 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> +/* TODO: To be removed in a future kernel version */
> static __init int xen_parse_nopvspin(char *arg)
> {
> - xen_pvspin = false;
> + pr_warn("xen_nopvspin is deprecated, replace it with \"pvlock_type=queued\"!\n");
> + if (!pv_spinlock_type)
> + pv_spinlock_type = locktype_queued;
Since we currently end up using unfair locks and because you are
deprecating xen_nopvspin I wonder whether it would be better to set this
to locktype_unfair so that current behavior doesn't change. (Sorry, I
haven't responded to your earlier message before you posted this). Juergen?
I am also not sure I agree with making pv_spinlock an enum *and* a
bitmask at the same time. I understand that it makes checks easier but I
think not assuming a value or a pattern would be better, especially
since none of the uses is on a critical path.
(For example, !pv_spinlock_type is the same as locktype_auto, which is
defined but never used)
-boris
> return 0;
> }
> early_param("xen_nopvspin", xen_parse_nopvspin);
> -
Powered by blists - more mailing lists