[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [3]   [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
On 04/03/2019 01:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:33:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> static inline void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32
>> val)
>> {
>>         if (static_branch_unlikely(&use_numa_spinlock))
>>                 numa_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(lock, val);
>>         else   
>>                 native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(lock, val);
>> }
> That's horrible for the exact reason you state.
>> Alternatively, we can also call numa_queued_spin_lock_slowpath() in
>> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath() if we don't want to increase the code
>> size of spinlock call sites.
> Yeah, still don't much like that though, we're littering the fast path
> of that slow path with all sorts of crap.

Yes, I know it is less than ideal, but that is probably the only option
if we don't have static_call or paravirt. On the other hand, I am
perfectly fine with making CNA depends on PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS for now
until static_call is available.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-03 19:40    [W:0.055 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site