From: Jan Beulich on
>>> On 30.06.10 at 10:11, Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 15:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> The (only) additional overhead this introduces for native execution is
>> the writing of the owning CPU in the lock acquire paths.
>
> Uhm, and growing the size of spinlock_t to 6 (or 8 bytes when aligned)
> bytes when NR_CPUS>256.

Indeed, I should have mentioned that. Will do so in an eventual
next version.

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jan Beulich on
>>> On 30.06.10 at 12:10, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy(a)goop.org> wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 30.06.10 at 10:11, Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 15:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>>> The (only) additional overhead this introduces for native execution is
>>>> the writing of the owning CPU in the lock acquire paths.
>>>>
>>> Uhm, and growing the size of spinlock_t to 6 (or 8 bytes when aligned)
>>> bytes when NR_CPUS>256.
>>>
>> Indeed, I should have mentioned that. Will do so in an eventual
>> next version.
>>
>
> Rather than increasing the lock size, why not just disable the
> enlightenment if the number of (possible) cpus is > 256? I don't think
> a VM will ever have that many cpus, so it will only apply in the case of
> booting the kernel on large physical machine.

While that would be an option, I think the decision to go either
way should really be left to the user (after all that's why there
is a config option in the first place).

Jan

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