Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752665Ab3FDKyj (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 06:54:39 -0400 Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:33223 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751375Ab3FDKyg (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 06:54:36 -0400 Message-ID: <51ADC859.6060507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:28:33 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: gleb@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, peterz@infradead.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, attilio.rao@citrix.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, gregkh@suse.de, agraf@suse.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks References: <20130601082145.22955.33596.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20130601201442.GP6123@two.firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <20130601201442.GP6123@two.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13060410-7014-0000-0000-0000031D8C67 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 765 Lines: 22 On 06/02/2013 01:44 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision > to the spinlocks. > > This needs to be done at the top level (so the level you're removing) > > However I don't like the pv mechanism very much and would > be fine with using an static key hook in the main path > like I do for all the other lock types. > > It also uses interrupt ops patching, for that it would > be still needed though. > Hi Andi, IIUC, you are okay with the current approach overall right? -- 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/