From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751493AbbCTIBS (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 04:01:18 -0400 Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.2]:40239 "EHLO e28smtp02.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750966AbbCTIBN (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 04:01:13 -0400 Message-ID: <550BCFBC.9000106@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:13:56 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Waiman Long CC: Peter Zijlstra , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, paolo.bonzini@gmail.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, david.vrabel@citrix.com, oleg@redhat.com, scott.norton@hp.com, doug.hatch@hp.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] qspinlock,x86,kvm: Implement KVM support for paravirt qspinlock References: <20150316131613.720617163@infradead.org> <20150316133112.333845162@infradead.org> <550A3863.2060808@hp.com> <20150319100121.GL21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <550B3ACF.4050908@hp.com> In-Reply-To: <550B3ACF.4050908@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15032008-0005-0000-0000-00000459B3DB Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/20/2015 02:38 AM, Waiman Long wrote: > On 03/19/2015 06:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: [...] > You are probably right. The initial apply_paravirt() was done before the > SMP boot. Subsequent ones were at kernel module load time. I put a > counter in the __native_queue_spin_unlock() and it registered 26949 > unlock calls in a 16-cpu guest before it got patched out. because even printks take lock..