lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock
From
Date
On 6/6/19 11:32 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 6/6/19 11:21 AM, Alex Kogan wrote:
>>>> Also, the paravirt code is under arch/x86, while CNA is generic (not
>>>> x86-specific). Do you still want to see CNA-related patching residing
>>>> under arch/x86?
>>>>
>>>> We still need a config option (something like NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS) to
>>>> enable CNA patching under this config only, correct?
>>> There is the static_call() stuff that could be generic; I posted a new
>>> version of that today (x86 only for now, but IIRC there's arm64 patches
>>> for that around somewhere too).
>> The static_call technique appears as the more desirable long-term approach, but I think it would be prudent to keep the patches decoupled for now so we can move forward with less entanglements.
>> So unless anyone objects, we will work on plugging into the existing patching for pv.
>> And we will keep that code under arch/x86, but will be open for any suggestion to move it elsewhere.
>>
> If you mean making the CNV code depends on PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS for now,
> that is fine. The code should be under kernel/locking. You shouldn't put
> it somewhere under arch/x86.

I mean the core CNV code should be under kernel/locking. The paravirt
specific code, however, should be close to the current paravirt code
which is under arch/x86.

-Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-06 17:43    [W:0.049 / U:2.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site