lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] IB/ehca: Serialize HCA-related hCalls on POWER5
From
Date
 > > +               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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-06 19:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans