> > + ehca_lock_hcalls = !(cur_cpu_spec->cpu_user_features
> > + & PPC_FEATURE_ARCH_2_05);
> We already talked about this yesterday, but I still feel that checking the
> instruction set of the CPU should not be used to determine whether a
> specific device driver implementation is used int hypervisor.
I had the same reaction... is testing cpu_user_features really the
best way to detect this issue?
I'll hold off applying this for a few days so you guys can decide the
best thing to do. We'll definitely get some fix into 2.6.24 but we
have time to make a good decision.
> Regarding the performance problem, have you checked whether converting all
> your spin_lock_irqsave to spin_lock/spin_lock_irq improves your performance
> on the older machines? Maybe it's already fast enough that way.
It does seem that the only places that the hcall_lock is taken also
use msleep, so they must always be in process context. So you can
safely just use spin_lock(), right?
- R.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]