On 6/6/19 11:32 AM, Waiman Long wrote: > 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. I mean the core CNV code should be under kernel/locking. The paravirt specific code, however, should be close to the current paravirt code which is under arch/x86. -Longman
