Re: [patch v3 34/36] x86/smpboot: Implement a bit spinlock to protect the realmode stack

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 34/36] x86/smpboot: Implement a bit spinlock to protect the realmode stack
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 15:47:36 +0200
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@xxxxxxxxx>, Arjan van de Veen <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx>, Piotr Gorski <lucjan.lucjanov@xxxxxxxxx>, Usama Arif <usama.arif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-csky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>, linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>, Sabin Rapan <sabrapan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20230509131340.GA83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230508181633.089804905@linutronix.de> <20230508185219.123719053@linutronix.de> <20230509131340.GA83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Tue, May 09 2023 at 15:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 09:44:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Do we really care about performance here; or should we pick the simpler
> form? Also, 'lock' is a prefix, not an instruction.

Right. KISS is the way to go.

References:
- [patch v3 00/36] cpu/hotplug, x86: Reworked parallel CPU bringup
  - From: Thomas Gleixner
- [patch v3 34/36] x86/smpboot: Implement a bit spinlock to protect the realmode stack
  - From: Thomas Gleixner
- Re: [patch v3 34/36] x86/smpboot: Implement a bit spinlock to protect the realmode stack
  - From: Peter Zijlstra

Prev by Date: Re: [patch v3 34/36] x86/smpboot: Implement a bit spinlock to protect the realmode stack
Next by Date: Re: [patch v3 35/36] x86/smpboot: Support parallel startup of secondary CPUs
Previous by thread: Re: [patch v3 34/36] x86/smpboot: Implement a bit spinlock to protect the realmode stack
Next by thread: [patch v3 35/36] x86/smpboot: Support parallel startup of secondary CPUs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux SoC] [Linux USB Devel] [Video for Linux] [Linux Audio Users] [Yosemite News] [Linux Kernel] [Linux SCSI]