Re: [PATCH 10/11] qspinlock: Paravirt support

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 15/06/2014 14:47, Peter Zijlstra ha scritto:
>  #if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE)
>
> -#define	queue_spin_unlock queue_spin_unlock
>  /**
>   * queue_spin_unlock - release a queue spinlock
>   * @lock : Pointer to queue spinlock structure
>   *
>   * An effective smp_store_release() on the least-significant byte.
>   */
> -static inline void queue_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +static inline void native_queue_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
>  	barrier();
>  	ACCESS_ONCE(*(u8 *)lock) = 0;
>  }
>
> +#else
> +
> +static inline void native_queue_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	atomic_dec(&lock->val);
> +}
> +
>  #endif /* !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE && !CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE */


Should be (part of) an earlier patch?  Also, does it get wrong if 
(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE || CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE) && paravirt patches the 
unlock to a single movb?  Of course the paravirt spinlocks could simply 
depend on !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE && !CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE.

> +
> +#define INVALID_HEAD	-1
> +#define NO_HEAD		nr_cpu_ids
> +

-2, like Waiman said.

Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/