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 10/29/2014 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 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 wil
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 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 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 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 fu
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 fu
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 have
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 pe
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 impa
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, howe
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 balanc
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 mcs_sp
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 r
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())
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
