* Ido Yariv <[email protected]> wrote:
> vSMP Foundation does not require to serialize CPA by guaranteeing that
> the most recent TLB entry will always be used.
>
> To avoid needless contention on cpa_lock, do not lock/unlock it if it
> isn't necessary.
>
> Based on work by Shai Fultheim <[email protected]>.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ido Yariv <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Shai Fultheim <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes from v1:
> - Use a synthetic CPUID bit and a use static_cpu_has() as suggested by
> H. Peter Avnin
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/vsmp_64.c | 10 ++++++++++
> arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 6b7ee5f..92303a0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@
> #define X86_FEATURE_EXTD_APICID (3*32+26) /* has extended APICID (8
> bits) */
> #define X86_FEATURE_AMD_DCM (3*32+27) /* multi-node processor */
> #define X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF (3*32+28) /* APERFMPERF */
> +#define X86_FEATURE_NO_CPA_LOCK (3*32+29) /* Serializing cpa is not
> required */
Patch looks mostly good, but could we please use some more
hardware-ish name, instead of referring to a kernel lock?
I.e. how would you name it if this was a real hardware feature?
Certainly not 'No CPA Lock'.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
