Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check

[Pan Xinhui]

å 2016/9/29 18:31, Peter Zijlstra åé:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:23:19PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On 09/29/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:45:10AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> > > > change from v2:
> > > > 	no code change, fix typos, update some comments
> > > >
> > > > change from v1:
> > > > 	a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted
> > > > 	skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro.
> > > > 	add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner.
> > > > 	add more comments
> > > > 	thanks boqun and Peter's suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > This patch set aims to fix lock holder preemption issues.
> > >
> > > So I really like the concept, but I would also really like to see
> > > support for more hypervisors included before we can move forward with
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Please consider s390 and (x86/arm) KVM. Once we have a few, more can
> > > follow later, but I think its important to not only have PPC support for
> > > this.
> >
> > Actually the s390 preemted check via sigp sense running  is available for
> > all hypervisors (z/VM, LPAR and KVM) which implies everywhere as you can no
> > longer buy s390 systems without LPAR.
> >
> > As Heiko already pointed out we could simply use a small inline function
> > that calls cpu_is_preempted from arch/s390/lib/spinlock (or smp_vcpu_scheduled from smp.c)
>
> Sure, and I had vague memories of Heiko's email. This patch set however
> completely fails to do that trivial hooking up.

sorry for that.
I will try to work it out on x86.

Hi, Will
	I appreciate that if you or some other arm guys could help on it. :)