Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1220516
| From | Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression |
| Date | 2015-09-08 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q6kJs-4IZ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <q50Wu-5QK-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <q516c-61Z-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <q5Sat-5Rx-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <q5Yzg-6qO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6bwt-863-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, 07 Sep 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> Just to continue the argument for arguments sake, the function is named >> 'virt' (not paravirt) and tests the HYPERVISOR CPUID bit. How is that >> not appropriately named? > >Well, I think right now one issue is that you can't avoid it, even >when you want pure "raw hardware" spinlocks. > >I really think it should at the very least be inside CONFIG_PARAVIRT. Yeah, I think we all agree here. >Because it *is* about helping the hypervisor, so really is about >paravirtualization. Yes, this is how I interpret it as well. CONFIG_PARAVIRT seems like a suitable place as while it is known to induce in overhead for baremetal and distros tend to enable it by default - mainly for mem pvops (ie: in page fault paths), and having this function doesn't add any complexity or add make things much different than they already are. While it is true that CONFIG_HYPERVISOR_GUEST is a pre-req for anything pv, technically I think it's not as good a fit as CONFIG_PARAVIRT because the former is really about describing the hypervisor, and that's not what we're doing here. Thanks, Davidlohr -- 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/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-07 22:50 +0200
Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2015-09-08 08:40 +0200
Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-08 12:10 +0200
Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-08 19:50 +0200
csiph-web