From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753678AbbIGG5R (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 02:57:17 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:47599 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249AbbIGG5P (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 02:57:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:57:03 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Linus Torvalds , Dave Chinner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Waiman Long , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression Message-ID: <20150907065703.GX3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20150904054820.GY3902@dastard> <20150904071143.GZ3902@dastard> <20150904082954.GB3902@dastard> <20150904151427.GG18489@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150904152523.GR18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150907000546.GA27993@linux-q0g1.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150907000546.GA27993@linux-q0g1.site> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 05:05:46PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > >-static inline bool virt_queued_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > >+static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > > Given that we fall back to the cmpxchg loop even when PARAVIRT is not in the > picture, I believe this function is horribly misnamed. Just to continue the argument for arguments sake, the function is named 'virt' (not paravirt) and tests the HYPERVISOR CPUID bit. How is that not appropriately named?