[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58bb4085161a4112995e23b46353b777@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:50:57 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Fenghua Yu' <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
"Ravi V Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 13/20] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
default
FWIW it took me a while to work out what a 'split lock' was.
I suspect because I was thinking of kernel locks, not the
instruction lock prefix.
It also isn't really obvious that 'split' refers to crossing
cache lines.
Referring to it as a 'misaligned lock' might be more
easily understood.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists