On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:23:19PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 09/29/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:45:10AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: > >> change from v2: > >> no code change, fix typos, update some comments > >> > >> change from v1: > >> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted > >> skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro. > >> add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and > >> mutex_spin_on_owner. > >> add more comments > >> thanks boqun and Peter's suggestion. > >> > >> This patch set aims to fix lock holder preemption issues. > > > > So I really like the concept, but I would also really like to see > > support for more hypervisors included before we can move forward with > > this. > > > > Please consider s390 and (x86/arm) KVM. Once we have a few, more can > > follow later, but I think its important to not only have PPC support for > > this. > > Actually the s390 preemted check via sigp sense running is available for > all hypervisors (z/VM, LPAR and KVM) which implies everywhere as you can no > longer buy s390 systems without LPAR. > > As Heiko already pointed out we could simply use a small inline function > that calls cpu_is_preempted from arch/s390/lib/spinlock (or > smp_vcpu_scheduled from smp.c)
Sure, and I had vague memories of Heiko's email. This patch set however completely fails to do that trivial hooking up.
