From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757544Ab0IZLua (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:50:30 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:39167 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757378Ab0IZLu3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:50:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:09:10 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nick Piggin , Peter Zijlstra , Jan Beulich , Avi Kivity , Xen-devel , suzuki@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/12] xen/pvticketlock: Xen implementation for PV ticket locks Message-ID: <20100926113910.GA6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <32e63cc978ec4b3f36c7f641ce48b3d86aed22ed.1279328276.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32e63cc978ec4b3f36c7f641ce48b3d86aed22ed.1279328276.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 06:03:04PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Replace the old Xen implementation of PV spinlocks with and implementation > of xen_lock_spinning and xen_unlock_kick. I see that the old implementation took care of a spinlock() call being interrupted by another spinlock (in interrupt handler), by saving/restoring old lock of interest. We don't seem to be doing that in this new version? Won't that lead to loss of wakeup -> hang? Also are you planning to push this series into mainline sometime soon? - vatsa