On 6/6/19 11:32 AM, Waiman Long wrote:

On 6/6/19 11:21 AM, Alex Kogan wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Also, the paravirt code is under arch/x86, while CNA is generic (not
x86-specific).  Do you still want to see CNA-related patching residing
under arch/x86?

We still need a config option (something like NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS) to
enable CNA patching under this config only, correct?

There is the static_call() stuff that could be generic; I posted a new
version of that today (x86 only for now, but IIRC there's arm64 patches
for that around somewhere too).

The static_call technique appears as the more desirable long-term approach, but I think it would be prudent to keep the patches decoupled for now so we can move forward with less entanglements.
So unless anyone objects, we will work on plugging into the existing patching for pv.
And we will keep that code under arch/x86, but will be open for any suggestion to move it elsewhere.

If you mean making the CNV code depends on PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS for now,
that is fine. The code should be under kernel/locking. You shouldn't put
it somewhere under arch/x86.

I mean the core CNV code should be under kernel/locking. The paravirt
specific code, however, should be close to the current paravirt code
which is under arch/x86.

-Longman


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel