> > + ehca_lock_hcalls = !(cur_cpu_spec->cpu_user_features > > + & PPC_FEATURE_ARCH_2_05);
> We already talked about this yesterday, but I still feel that checking the > instruction set of the CPU should not be used to determine whether a > specific device driver implementation is used int hypervisor. I had the same reaction... is testing cpu_user_features really the best way to detect this issue? I'll hold off applying this for a few days so you guys can decide the best thing to do. We'll definitely get some fix into 2.6.24 but we have time to make a good decision. > Regarding the performance problem, have you checked whether converting all > your spin_lock_irqsave to spin_lock/spin_lock_irq improves your performance > on the older machines? Maybe it's already fast enough that way. It does seem that the only places that the hcall_lock is taken also use msleep, so they must always be in process context. So you can safely just use spin_lock(), right? - R. -- 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/
