On 6/6/19 11:21 AM, Alex Kogan wrote: >>> Also, the paravirt code is under arch/x86, while CNA is generic (not >>> x86-specific). Do you still want to see CNA-related patching residing >>> under arch/x86? >>> >>> We still need a config option (something like NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS) to >>> enable CNA patching under this config only, correct? >> There is the static_call() stuff that could be generic; I posted a new >> version of that today (x86 only for now, but IIRC there's arm64 patches >> for that around somewhere too). > The static_call technique appears as the more desirable long-term approach, but I think it would be prudent to keep the patches decoupled for now so we can move forward with less entanglements. > So unless anyone objects, we will work on plugging into the existing patching for pv. > And we will keep that code under arch/x86, but will be open for any suggestion to move it elsewhere. > If you mean making the CNV code depends on PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS for now, that is fine. The code should be under kernel/locking. You shouldn't put it somewhere under arch/x86. -Longman
