On 09/05/2017 10:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:02:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>> I think you can take the above if statement out as you has done test in
>> native_pv_lock_init(). So the test will also be false here.
> That does mean we'll run a test-and-set spinlock until paravirt patching
> happens though. I prefer to not do that.
>
> One important point.. we must not be holding any locks when we switch
> over between the two locks. Back then I spend some time making sure that
> didn't happen with the X86 feature flag muck.
AFAICT, native_pv_lock_init() is called before SMP init. So it shouldn't
matter.
Cheers,
Longman
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
