lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip:x86/mm] x86/pat: Avoid contention on cpa_lock if possible

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:18 -0700, tip-bot for Shai Fultheim wrote:
>
> > [ I absolutely hate these locking patterns ... yet I have no better idea. Maybe the gents on Cc: ... ]
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>
> Oh yuck, this is vile..
>
> static struct static_key scale_mp_trainwreck = STATIC_KEY_INIT_FALSE;
>
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(_cpa_lock);
>
> static inline void cpa_lock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> static inline void cpa_unlock(void)
> {
> if (static_key_false(&scale_mp_trainwreck))
> return;
>
> spin_lock(&_cpa_lock);
> }
>
> And then use cpa_{,un}lock(), and the scale-mp guys can
> static_key_slow_inc(&scale_mp_trainwreck).
>
> [ and yes I hate those jump_label names ... but I'm not wanting
> to go through another round of bike-shed painting. ]

ok.

Another problem this patch has is inadequate testing:

arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c:798:2: error: implicit declaration of
function ‘is_vsmp_box’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]

So I'm removing it from tip:x86/mm for now.

Thanks,

Ingo
--
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: 2012-06-06 20:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans