Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow
 path of qspinlock
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To:     Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@oracle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
        arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, bp@alien8.de,
        hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        dave.dice@oracle.com, Rahul Yadav <rahul.x.yadav@oracle.com>
References: <20190329152006.110370-1-alex.kogan@oracle.com>
 <20190329152006.110370-4-alex.kogan@oracle.com>
 <60a3a2d8-d222-73aa-2df1-64c9d3fa3241@redhat.com>
 <20190402094320.GM11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <6AEDE4F2-306A-4DF9-9307-9E3517C68A2B@oracle.com>
 <20190403160112.GK4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <C0BC44A5-875C-4BED-A616-D380F6CF25D5@oracle.com>
 <20190605204003.GC3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <6426D627-77EE-471C-B02A-A85271B666E9@oracle.com>
 <409b5d52-1f7d-7f60-04c7-e791e069239f@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <dc79105d-3f4d-d940-0313-cec9b3cf0680@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 11:42:09 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <409b5d52-1f7d-7f60-04c7-e791e069239f@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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