[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:38:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, steven.sistare@...cle.com,
daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, dave.dice@...cle.com,
rahul.x.yadav@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow
path of qspinlock
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:05:24AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK this would be just an alternative() then?
That could maybe work yes. This is all early enough.
> Maybe the resulting code would be much more readable if we'd just
> make PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK usable without the other PARAVIRT hooks? So
> splitting up PARAVIRT into PARAVIRT_GUEST (timer hooks et al) and
> the patching infrastructure, with PARAVIRT_GUEST and PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK
> selecting PARAVIRT, and PARAVIRT_XXL selecting PARAVIRT_GUEST.
Well, ideally we'll get static_call() sorted and use that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists