[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d52b7462dfa5189a9e7590d6db88bc22b8c2ac5d.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:12:45 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Enrico Weigelt <info@...ux.net>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ppc/crash: Skip spinlocks during crash
Hello Peter,
On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 13:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> do {
> > > + if (unlikely(crash_skip_spinlock))
> > > + return;
> >
> > You are adding a test that reads a global var in the middle of a so hot path
> > ? That must kill performance. Can we do different ?
>
> This; adding code to a super hot patch like this for an exceptional case
> like the crash handling seems like a very very bad trade to me.
>
> One possible solution is to simply write 0 to the affected spinlocks
> after sending the NMI IPI thing, no?
Yes, I agree.
I suggested this on a comment in v2 of this patch:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1262468/
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists