Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] powerpc/pseries: implement paravirt qspinlocks for SPLPAR

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

 



On 7/23/20 10:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:06:13PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
We don't really need to do a pv_spinlocks_init() if pv_kick() isn't
supported.
Waiman, if you cannot explain how not having kick is a sane thing, what
are you saying here?

The current PPC paravirt spinlock code doesn't do any cpu kick. It does an equivalence of pv_wait by yielding the cpu to the lock holder only. The pv_spinlocks_init() is for setting up the hash table for doing pv_kick. If we don't need to do pv_kick, we don't need the hash table.

I am not saying that pv_kick is not needed for the PPC environment. I was just trying to adapt the pvqspinlock code to such an environment first. Further investigation on how to implement some kind of pv_kick will be something that we may want to do as a follow on.

BTW, do you have any comment on my v2 lock holder cpu info qspinlock patch? I will have to update the patch to fix the reported 0-day test problem, but I want to collect other feedback before sending out v3.

Cheers,
Longman

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux