[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <845de183-56f5-2958-3159-faa131d46401@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:32:36 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] powerpc/pseries: implement paravirt qspinlocks for
SPLPAR
On 7/23/20 10:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:06:13PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> We don't really need to do a pv_spinlocks_init() if pv_kick() isn't
>> supported.
> Waiman, if you cannot explain how not having kick is a sane thing, what
> are you saying here?
>
The current PPC paravirt spinlock code doesn't do any cpu kick. It does
an equivalence of pv_wait by yielding the cpu to the lock holder only.
The pv_spinlocks_init() is for setting up the hash table for doing
pv_kick. If we don't need to do pv_kick, we don't need the hash table.
I am not saying that pv_kick is not needed for the PPC environment. I
was just trying to adapt the pvqspinlock code to such an environment
first. Further investigation on how to implement some kind of pv_kick
will be something that we may want to do as a follow on.
BTW, do you have any comment on my v2 lock holder cpu info qspinlock
patch? I will have to update the patch to fix the reported 0-day test
problem, but I want to collect other feedback before sending out v3.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists