On 03/20/2015 02:38 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 03/19/2015 06:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
You are probably right. The initial apply_paravirt() was done before the
SMP boot. Subsequent ones were at kernel module load time. I put a
counter in the __native_queue_spin_unlock() and it registere
On 03/19/2015 06:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:45:55PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 03/16/2015 09:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I do have some concern about this call site patching mechanism as the
modification is not atomic. The spin_unlock() calls are in many places in
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:45:55PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 09:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I do have some concern about this call site patching mechanism as the
> modification is not atomic. The spin_unlock() calls are in many places in
> the kernel. There is a possibility that
Implement the paravirt qspinlock for x86-kvm.
We use the regular paravirt call patching to switch between:
native_queue_spin_lock_slowpath() __pv_queue_spin_lock_slowpath()
native_queue_spin_unlock()__pv_queue_spin_unlock()
We use a callee saved call for the unlock function w
4 matches
Mail list logo
