On 09/06/2017 09:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:44:09AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Guys, please trim email.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
For clarification, I was actually
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:44:09AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Guys, please trim email.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
> >> more
On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Guys, please trim email.
>
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
>> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
>> virt_spin_lock() a
Guys, please trim email.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.
I don't understand. What performance are you
On 05/09/17 16:31, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 10:24 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
On 09/05/2017 10:24 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
behavior (e.g. by setting
On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>>> has the
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))
>>> +
On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme
On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock()
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
On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock()
On 05/09/17 15:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:24:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> +++
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:24:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@
There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
environment.
Make
15 matches
Mail list logo
