Excerpts from Michael Ellerman's message of July 9, 2020 8:53 pm:
> Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h | 28 ++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 66 +++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 7 ++
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig | 5 ++
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c | 6 +-
>> include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h | 2 +
>
> Another ack?
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> index 7a8546660a63..f2d51f929cf5 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> @@ -45,6 +55,19 @@ static inline void yield_to_preempted(int cpu, u32 yield_count)
>> {
>> ___bad_yield_to_preempted(); /* This would be a bug */
>> }
>> +
>> +extern void ___bad_yield_to_any(void);
>> +static inline void yield_to_any(void)
>> +{
>> + ___bad_yield_to_any(); /* This would be a bug */
>> +}
>
> Why do we do that rather than just not defining yield_to_any() at all
> and letting the build fail on that?
>
> There's a condition somewhere that we know will false at compile time
> and drop the call before linking?
Mainly so you could use it in if (IS_ENABLED()) blocks, but would still
catch the (presumably buggy) case where something calls it without the
option set.
I think I had it arranged a different way that was using IS_ENABLED
earlier and changed it but might as well keep it this way.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..750d1b5e0202
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
>> +#ifndef __ASM_QSPINLOCK_PARAVIRT_H
>> +#define __ASM_QSPINLOCK_PARAVIRT_H
>
> _ASM_POWERPC_QSPINLOCK_PARAVIRT_H please.
>
>> +
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__pv_queued_spin_unlock);
>
> Why's that in a header? Should that (eventually) go with the generic implementation?
Yeah the qspinlock_paravirt.h header is a bit weird and only gets
included into kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
>> index 24c18362e5ea..756e727b383f 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
>> @@ -25,9 +25,14 @@ config PPC_PSERIES
>> select SWIOTLB
>> default y
>>
>> +config PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>> + bool
>> + default n
>
> default n is the default.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c
>> index 2db8469e475f..747a203d9453 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c
>> @@ -771,8 +771,12 @@ static void __init pSeries_setup_arch(void)
>> if (firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_LPAR)) {
>> vpa_init(boot_cpuid);
>>
>> - if (lppaca_shared_proc(get_lppaca()))
>> + if (lppaca_shared_proc(get_lppaca())) {
>> static_branch_enable(&shared_processor);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>> + pv_spinlocks_init();
>> +#endif
>> + }
>
> We could avoid the ifdef with this I think?
Yes I think so.
Thanks,
Nick
