[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V6 2/11] x86/ticketlock: don't inline _spin_unlock when using paravirt spinlocks
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:36:42 +0530
- Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:07:51 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 03/21/2012 10:43 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Raghavendra K T
<raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge<jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
The code size expands somewhat, and its probably better to just call
a function rather than inline it.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge<jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/Kconfig | 3 +++
kernel/Kconfig.locks | 2 +-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 5bed94e..10c28ec 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -623,6 +623,9 @@ config PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
+config ARCH_NOINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK
+ def_bool PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
+
config PARAVIRT_CLOCK
bool
diff --git a/kernel/Kconfig.locks b/kernel/Kconfig.locks
index 5068e2a..584637b 100644
--- a/kernel/Kconfig.locks
+++ b/kernel/Kconfig.locks
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ config INLINE_SPIN_LOCK_IRQSAVE
ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_LOCK_IRQSAVE
config INLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK
- def_bool !DEBUG_SPINLOCK&& (!PREEMPT || ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK)
+ def_bool !DEBUG_SPINLOCK&& (!PREEMPT || ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK)&&
!ARCH_NOINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK
config INLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK_BH
def_bool !DEBUG_SPINLOCK&& ARCH_INLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK_BH
Ugh. This is getting really ugly.
Agree that it had become longer.
Can we just fix it by
- getting rid of INLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK entirely
- replacing it with UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK instead with the reverse
meaning, and no "def_bool" at all, just a simple
config UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK
bool
- make the various people who want to uninline the spinlocks (like
spinlock debugging, paravirt etc) all just do
select UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK
I just posted https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/94. Please let me know
if that looks better.
And this patch should now become something like
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 5bed94e..2666b7d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -613,6 +613,7 @@ config PARAVIRT
config PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
bool "Paravirtualization layer for spinlocks"
depends on PARAVIRT && SMP && EXPERIMENTAL
+ select UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK
---help---
Paravirtualized spinlocks allow a pvops backend to replace the
spinlock implementation with something virtualization-friendly
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|