Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20090420.050403.56531925.davem@davemloft.net>
To: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Cc: folkert@vanheusden.com, mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org,
       schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: have non-spinning mutexes on s390 by default
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090420140103.27d92d7d@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
References: <20090409174758.74abec87@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
	<20090417214212.GG10554@vanheusden.com>
	<20090420140103.27d92d7d@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1232
Lines: 27

From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:01:03 +0200

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:42:12 +0200
> Folkert van Heusden <folkert@vanheusden.com> wrote:
> 
>> > The adaptive spinning mutexes will not always do what one would expect on
>> > virtualized architectures like s390. Especially the cpu_relax() loop in
>> > mutex_spin_on_owner might hurt if the mutex holding cpu has been scheduled
>> > away by the hypervisor.
>> > We would end up in a cpu_relax() loop when there is no chance that the
>> > state of the mutex changes until the target cpu has been scheduled again by
>> > the hypervisor.
>> > For that reason we should change the default behaviour to no-spin on s390.
>> 
>> Hmmm. Wouldn't this be a change that applies to ibm system p as wel?
>> E.g. with linux in an lpar.
> 
> This applies to every kernel that runs under a hypervisor.

I wouldn't say "every" because this change is definitely not
appropriate on sparc64 hypervisor based systems.
--
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/