WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 09/14] xen/pvticketlock: Xen implementation for P

To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 09/14] xen/pvticketlock: Xen implementation for PV ticket locks
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:11:24 +0000
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx, Linux Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:12:19 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <aa32da076143b8e13c23c1f589d7e6cbedb22907.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx><cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <aa32da076143b8e13c23c1f589d7e6cbedb22907.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 16.11.10 at 22:08, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +static void xen_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, unsigned want)
>  {
> -     struct xen_spinlock *xl = (struct xen_spinlock *)lock;
> -     struct xen_spinlock *prev;
>       int irq = __get_cpu_var(lock_kicker_irq);
> -     int ret;
> +     struct xen_lock_waiting *w = &__get_cpu_var(lock_waiting);
> +     int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>       u64 start;
>  
>       /* If kicker interrupts not initialized yet, just spin */
>       if (irq == -1)
> -             return 0;
> +             return;
>  
>       start = spin_time_start();
>  
> -     /* announce we're spinning */
> -     prev = spinning_lock(xl);
> +     w->want = want;
> +     w->lock = lock;
> +
> +     /* This uses set_bit, which atomic and therefore a barrier */
> +     cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &waiting_cpus);

Since you don't allow nesting, don't you need to disable
interrupts before you touch per-CPU state?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>