[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7ch19LdYceFFmKEd3=tPU53xEMHtUiarv9CTXxaCLKHTtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:37:02 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: Add __lockfunc to slow path functions
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 4:09 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/9/22 17:13, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h
> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__pv_queued_spin_unlock_slowpath);
> > * rsi = lockval (second argument)
> > * rdx = internal variable (set to 0)
> > */
> > -asm (".pushsection .text;"
> > +asm (".pushsection .spinlock.text;"
> > ".globl " PV_UNLOCK ";"
> > ".type " PV_UNLOCK ", @function;"
> > ".align 4,0x90;"
> >
> That is what I meant. However, you should also a comment saying that the
> use of .spinlock.text section is equivalent to the use of __lockfunc on
> an equivalent C function to make it clear. Also add the __lockfunc to
> the pseudo code in the comment section.
Thanks, will add!
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists