Hi,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, lock_kicker_irq) = -1;
>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct xen_spinlock *, lock_spinners);
>>>
>>
>> The plural is a bit misleading, as this is a single pointer per CPU.
>>
>
> Yeah. And it's wrong because it's specifically *not* spinning, but
> blocking.
I thought of it as `virtually spinning', so had no problems with the
naming itself :)
>>> +static noinline void xen_spin_unlock_slow(struct xen_spinlock *xl)
>>> +{
>>> + int cpu;
>>> +
>>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>>>
>>
>> Would it be feasible to have a bitmap for the spinning CPUs in order to
>> do a for_each_spinning_cpu() here instead? Or is setting a bit in
>> spinning_lock() and unsetting it in unspinning_lock() more overhead than
>> going over all CPUs here?
>>
>
> Not worthwhile, I think. This is a very rare path: it will only
> happen if 1) there's lock contention, that 2) wasn't resolved within
> the timeout. In practice, this gets called a few thousand times per
> cpu over a kernbench, which is nothing.
Okay, I agree.
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
