Hello Peter,
On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 13:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> do {
> > > + if (unlikely(crash_skip_spinlock))
> > > + return;
> >
> > You are adding a test that reads a global var in the middle of a so hot path
> > ? That must kill performance. Can we do different ?
>
> This; adding code to a super hot patch like this for an exceptional case
> like the crash handling seems like a very very bad trade to me.
>
> One possible solution is to simply write 0 to the affected spinlocks
> after sending the NMI IPI thing, no?Yes, I agree. I suggested this on a comment in v2 of this patch: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1262468/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
