On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:14:27PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Christopher M Riedl writes:
> > Yep, and that's no good. Hmm, executing the barrier() in the
> > non-shared-processor
> > case probably hurts performance here?
>
> It's only a "compiler barrier", so it shouldn't generate any
> On August 6, 2019 at 7:14 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
>
> Christopher M Riedl writes:
> >> On August 2, 2019 at 6:38 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> "Christopher M. Riedl" writes:
> >>
> >> This leaves us with a double test of is_shared_processor() doesn't it?
> >
> > Yep, and that's
Christopher M Riedl writes:
>> On August 2, 2019 at 6:38 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> "Christopher M. Riedl" writes:
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> > index 0a8270183770..6aed8a83b180 100644
>> > ---
> On August 2, 2019 at 6:38 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
>
> "Christopher M. Riedl" writes:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > index 0a8270183770..6aed8a83b180 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > +++
"Christopher M. Riedl" writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index 0a8270183770..6aed8a83b180 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -124,6 +122,22 @@ static inline bool
Booting w/ ppc64le_defconfig + CONFIG_PREEMPT results in the attached
kernel trace due to calling shared-processor spinlocks while not running
in an SPLPAR. Previously, the out-of-line spinlocks implementations were
selected based on CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR at compile time without a runtime
