On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:24 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:04:41AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > But my guess is that rwlock + some testing for the legacy indicator case
> > > just to double check if there is a heavy regression despite of our
> > > expectations to see none should do the trick.
> >
> > I suggest this, rwlock (for not airq) seems better than spinlock, but
> > at worst case it will cause cache line bouncing. But I wonder if it's
> > noticeable (anyhow it has been used for airq).
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Which existing rwlock does airq use right now? Can we take it to sync?
It's the rwlock in airq_info, it has already been used in this patch.
write_lock(&info->lock);
write_unlock(&info->lock);
But the problem is, it looks to me there could be a case that airq is
not used, (virtio_ccw_int_hander()). That's why the patch use a
spinlock, it could be optimized with using a rwlock as well.
Thanks
>
> --
> MST
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
