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 00/13] [PATCH RFC] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/13] [PATCH RFC] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:42:21 -0700
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:43:24 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CA+55aFy8p5-q9cNfyWz1bFT4RKxZosyHM2t5g2miiWm2DvP1Gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.1314922370.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <CA+55aFxpz+1bXVsg7kMeozePa=j_2-OaOuidQ4Y9Bg063=HMfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4E61377B.4020600@xxxxxxxx> <CA+55aFy8p5-q9cNfyWz1bFT4RKxZosyHM2t5g2miiWm2DvP1Gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0
On 09/02/2011 01:27 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't know whether that fastpath code is small enough to consider
>> inlining everywhere?
> No.
>
> There's no point in inlining something that ends up containing a
> conditional function call: gcc will have to effectively save/restore
> registers around that thing anyway, so you lose a lot of the
> advantages of inlining. So I think it's better done as an out-of-line
> function, which I thought we did for spinlocks anyway.

Yes, lock currently out-of-line.

I should also make sure that unlock is also out of line when
paravirtualized.

> Also, do you run with CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_SIZE? Without that, gcc should
> be smart enough to make a "likely()" case be a fall-through.

Ah, I was wondering why I'd never seen likely/unlikely do anything
useful.  With OPTIMIZE_SIZE=n, there's no point in explicitly moving the
slowpath out to a separate function.

So the only downside with this variant is that it breaks my design
criteria of making the generated code look identical to the the original
code when CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=n.  But I don't know if that's an
actual downside in practice.

    J

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