On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -252,6 +260,18 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> >
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_NR_CPUS >= (1U << _Q_TAIL_CPU_BITS));
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS
> > + /*
> > + * A simple test and set unfair lock
> > + */
> > + if (static_key_false(&virt_unfairlocks_enabled)) {
> > + cpu_relax(); /* Relax after a failed lock attempt */
>
> Meh, I don't think anybody can tell the difference if you put that in or
> not, therefore don't.
>
> > + while (!queue_spin_trylock(lock))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_VIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS */
>
> If you're really worried about those upper 24bits, you can always clear
> them when you get here.
I don't think its a problem at all; flipping the static_key requires
stop_machine, which guarantees us that there are no spinlocks held. So I
think you can actually BUG_ON() the upper 24bits.
Attachment:
pgp_RaEYQ317I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
