[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] linux headers: header file(s) changes to enable spinlock use jumplabel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:44:25AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 02/20/2012 10:46 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> [...]
> >>>> So we get following error when we try to include jump_label.h from
> >>>>arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h because of cyclic dependency
> >>>><spinlock.h> -> <jumplabe.h> -> <workque.h> -> ...<seqlock.h> -> <spinlock.h>
> >>>What about splitting the jump_label_key_deferred stuff into a separate
> >>>jump_label_deferred.h, and just include that where it's needed?
> >>>
> >>Andrew Jones did exactly that (CCed).
> Sorry, did not get it. Tried to search the patch. Is it similar
> work or same work?. Could you please point. shall try both the way
> (current way and jump_label_deferred way). So whichever makes
> maintainer happy, let that go :)
It was not CCed to any ML. I CCed Andrew so he can chime in.

> But does pvlock have to use jump
> >>label? I looked at the code and it is used like paravirt patching. Meaning
> >>it is patched only once on a boot up when XEN is detected. May be use
> >>paravirt patching instead of jump label? What if jump label will want
> >>to use spinlock for some reason in the future (it uses mutex currently)?
> >
> >The point of the pv ticketlocks is to avoid any pvop calls on the
> >lock/unlock fastpath, relegating them to only the slow path.
> >Unfortunately, the pv unlock case can't be identical with the non-pv
> >unlock, and jump_labels are lighter weight and more efficient than pvops.
> >
> >It doesn't matter if jump_labels start using spinlocks; all we need the
> >jump_label machinery to do is patch the jump sites in the code so that
> >one of two execution paths can be selected. Since all the ticketlock
> >jump_label patching happens before SMP is enabled, there's no problem
> >with changing a lock while a cpu is executing the code.
> >
> I also felt agreeing with Jeremy. seemed to me that latter is more
> performance friendly. no?.

I thought not about pvop, but about alternative(). jump_labels is used
by spinlock to patch out jump into nops It can be done via alternative()
too I think.

> (Hmm. Thinking.. By the way is it not that Jeremy's earlier version
> had implementation similar to what Gleb asked ?)


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-20 10:37    [W:0.038 / U:11.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site