LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:47:08 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45D3673C.1070205@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070214122645.GE22008@elf.ucw.cz>

Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2007-02-08 07:36:12, Rusty Russell wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:35 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>     
>>> Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should
>>> always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not
>>> needed on virtualized hardware with something else.
>>>
>>> Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken.
>>>       
>> We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and
>> which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are
>> for hardware and not needed for virtualization.
>>     
>
> You did not time to do the full audit, so you just did #define.
>   

Yes, of course.  Since 99% of the drivers are completely irrelevant for 
paravirt, and 99% of the udelays are in drivers, there isn't much point 
to auditing a bunch of code we're not even going to be affected by.  The 
default case for udelay is it is not needed.


>> Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel
>> would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8)
>>     
>
> And here you claim you could not do the right thing, because people
> would notice you are doing huge search/replace without audit, and
> would stop you. So you simply hidden it from them :-(.
>   

What ludicrousness is this?  Hidden what?  That the default case for 
udelay is that it is not needed?

> Plus... udelay() should just work under virtualization, right? You get
> slightly slower kernel, but still working, so the "full audit" is not
> as hard as you are telling me.
>   

Save the time of doing a useless full audit and making sure we didn't 
accidentally redefine or misspell some symbol on a bunch of 
architectures we aren't even set up to compile for.

> Just replace udelay() with hardware_udelay() on places that matter in
> your workload...
>   

That's inconsistent.  We would be doing 2 SCSI drivers, part of the IDE 
code, some i386 arch code, some random places in the kernel... and now 
nobody else knows whether to use udelay or hardware_udelay and the code 
gets jumbled to the point that it is useless because there is no clear 
distinction between the two.  It is non-trivial to come up with a list 
of source files that we have to actually do this to.  One C-file calls a 
shared routine in a library, and now you've got a hidden udelay that you 
have absolutely no way of detecting.  The right thing to do if you want 
to do it on a line by line basis is exactly the opposite.  Remove udelay 
and find out what breaks.  Bugs are easier to find and fix than hidden 
code.  If I were to do it on a line by line basis, I would chose to 
replace udelay() with real_time_udelay() for those places that actually 
need it.

Zach

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-14 19:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-06  3:53 Zachary Amsden
2007-02-06 12:27 ` Andi Kleen
2007-02-06 21:59   ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-07 12:35     ` Pavel Machek
2007-02-07 20:36       ` Rusty Russell
2007-02-07 22:23         ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-08 14:43         ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-08 21:26           ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-08 21:37             ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-14 12:26         ` Pavel Machek
2007-02-14 19:47           ` Zachary Amsden [this message]
2007-02-14 12:52         ` Alan
2007-02-14 20:04           ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-14 21:34             ` Alan
2007-02-14 21:53               ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-15  0:33                 ` Alan
2007-02-15 10:17             ` Pavel Machek
2007-02-15 23:42               ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-15 23:49                 ` Pavel Machek
2007-02-15 23:50                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-02-16  3:22                 ` Rusty Russell
2007-02-07 14:58     ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-07 22:31       ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-08  8:24         ` Andi Kleen
2007-02-08  9:08           ` Zachary Amsden
2007-02-08 13:33             ` Andi Kleen
2007-02-08 14:41               ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-14 12:49             ` Alan
2007-02-14 22:51 ` Rusty Russell
2007-02-15  0:28   ` Alan
2007-02-15 13:35   ` Dmitry Torokhov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=45D3673C.1070205@vmware.com \
    --to=zach@vmware.com \
    --cc=ak@muc.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).