On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:33:58PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/27/2014 02:02 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
My concern is that spin_unlock() can be called in many places, including
loadable kernel modules. Can the
On 10/27/2014 02:02 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
My concern is that spin_unlock() can be called in many places, including
loadable kernel modules. Can the paravirt_patch_ident_32() function able to
patch all of them in reasonable
On 10/27/2014 05:22 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/27/2014 02:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock
On 10/29/2014 03:05 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/27/2014 05:22 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/27/2014 02:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long
On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 00:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves
which should be negligible in the overall performance . The additional
icache pressure, however,
On 10/24/2014 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves
which should be negligible in the overall performance . The additional
icache pressure, however, may have some
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves
which should be negligible in the overall
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
a jump label can be added to the unlock function without adding patch
sites all over the kernel.
But you don't
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
a jump label can be added to the unlock function
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
a jump label can be added to the unlock function
On 10/27/2014 01:27 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves
which
On 10/27/2014 02:02 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
On 10/27/2014 02:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
a jump
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
a jump label can be added to the unlock function without adding patch
sites all over the kernel.
But you don't have to. My patches allowed for the inline to
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+static inline void pv_init_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+ struct pv_qnode *pn = (struct pv_qnode *)node;
+
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct pv_qnode) 5*sizeof(struct mcs_spinlock));
+
+ if (!pv_enabled())
+
On 10/24/2014 04:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+static inline void pv_init_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+ struct pv_qnode *pn = (struct pv_qnode *)node;
+
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct pv_qnode) 5*sizeof(struct
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves
which should be negligible in the overall performance . The additional
icache pressure, however, may have some impact on performance. I was trying
to balance
This patch adds para-virtualization support to the queue spinlock
code base with minimal impact to the native case. There are some
minor code changes in the generic qspinlock.c file which should be
usable in other architectures. The other code changes are specific
to x86 processors and so are all
18 matches
Mail list logo
