Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux headers: header file(s) changes to enable spinlockuse jumplabel

[Raghavendra K T]

On 02/20/2012 03:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:44:25AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 02/20/2012 10:46 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
[...]
> > 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.

I had remembered that this discussion already happened with Jeremy's V5
of ticketlock patches. pulling out link :

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/384

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/