[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9039d470-c805-3d9d-c0a8-56cb3e539626@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:28:05 +0100
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.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, 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 02/11/17 14:25, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 06:01 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> 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 think the latest patch from Juergen in tip is to use native qspinlock
> when xen_nopvspin is specified. Right? That is why I made the current
> choice. I can certainly change to unfair if it is what you guys want.
No, when we are keeping xen_nopvspin (even as deprecated) it should
behave as designed, so locktype_queued is correct.
Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists