On 07/19/2018 03:18 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 07/19/2018 09:48 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On a VM with only 1 vCPU, the locking fast paths will always be
>> successful. In this case, there is no need to use the the PV qspinlock
>> code which has higher overhead on the unlock side than the
On 07/19/2018 09:48 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On a VM with only 1 vCPU, the locking fast paths will always be
> successful. In this case, there is no need to use the the PV qspinlock
> code which has higher overhead on the unlock side than the native
> qspinlock code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long
On a VM with only 1 vCPU, the locking fast paths will always be
successful. In this case, there is no need to use the the PV qspinlock
code which has higher overhead on the unlock side than the native
qspinlock code.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long
---
arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c | 3 ++-
1 file
