On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Well, at least we do unless you enable that broken paravirt support. > > I'm not at all clear on why CONFIG_PARAVIRT wants to use inferior > > locks, but I don't much care. > Because the virtual cpu that has the ticket might not get scheduled for > a while, even though another vcpu with a spinner is scheduled. > The whole (para)virt is a nightmare in that respect.
Hmm, are we in fact really using byte locks in CONFIG_PARAVIRT situation? Where are we actually setting pv_lock_ops.spin_lock pointer to point to __byte_spin_lock? Such initialization seems to happen only in paravirt_use_bytelocks() function, but my blind eyes prevent me from finding a callsite from which this function would eventually get called. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
