From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 3/4] gnttab: make the grant table lock a
 read-write lock
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:16:14 +0100
Message-ID: <555DF6BE.20102@citrix.com>
References: <1432137250-3700-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1432137250-3700-4-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<555DD049020000780007CAD2@mail.emea.novell.com>	<555DDF4E.7030508@citrix.com>
	<555E0D7A020000780007CCBF@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david.vrabel@citrix.com>) id 1YvTAC-0006oB-AW
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 16:17:40 +0000
In-Reply-To: <555E0D7A020000780007CCBF@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 21/05/15 15:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.05.15 at 15:36, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 21/05/15 11:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.05.15 at 17:54, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> @@ -827,9 +828,11 @@ __gnttab_map_grant_ref(
>>>>              if ( (wrc + rdc) == 0 )
>>>>                  err = iommu_map_page(ld, frame, frame, IOMMUF_readable);
>>>>          }
>>>> +
>>>> +        double_gt_lock(lgt, rgt);
>>>
>>> unlock. And with this code path actually used (due to the bug it's
>>> pretty clear it didn't get exercised in your testing), how does
>>> performance look like? 
>>
>> I think it will be no worse than what it was before -- this path already
>> really sucks (mapcount() loops over 1000s of entries).  I don't care
>> about this path at all.
> 
> It's kind of strange that you don't care about this case - afaict we're
> not getting there by default solely because dom0-strict mode is not
> currently the default (albeit arguably it should be).

What's your point?  Are you going to refuse this series unless it also
optimizes dom0-strict mode?

David