similar to: [GIT PULL v2 0/5] cpu_relax: drop lowlatency, introduce yield

No need to duplicate the same define everywhere. Since the only user is stop-machine and the only provider is s390, we can use a default implementation of cpu_relax_yield in sched.h. Suggested-by: Russell King <linux at armlinux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> --- arch/alpha/include/asm/processor.h | 1 - arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h

No need to duplicate the same define everywhere. Since the only user is stop-machine and the only provider is s390, we can use a default implementation of cpu_relax_yield in sched.h. Suggested-by: Russell King <linux at armlinux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> --- arch/alpha/include/asm/processor.h | 1 - arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h

This patch removes the __init modifier from an extern function declaration in acpi.h. Besides not being strictly needed, it requires the inclusion of linux/init.h, which is usually not even included directly, increasing header mess by a lot. Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> --- include/asm-x86/acpi.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

This patch removes the __init modifier from an extern function declaration in acpi.h. Besides not being strictly needed, it requires the inclusion of linux/init.h, which is usually not even included directly, increasing header mess by a lot. Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> --- include/asm-x86/acpi.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. For example on power,sparc64 and arc, cpu_relax can shift the CPU towards other hardware threads in an SMT environment. On s390 cpu_relax does even more, it uses an hypercall to the hypervisor to give up the timeslice.

As there are no users left, we can remove cpu_relax_lowlatency. Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> --- arch/alpha/include/asm/processor.h | 1 - arch/arc/include/asm/processor.h | 2 -- arch/arm/include/asm/processor.h | 1 - arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 1 - arch/avr32/include/asm/processor.h | 1 -

What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that there's much less headers included in the final version. Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> --- include/asm-x86/processor.h | 140

What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are deleted. Note that there's much less headers included in the final version. Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> --- include/asm-x86/processor.h | 140

Hi, This series integrate the processor.h header. There are a lot of things that are deeply architectural differences between architectures, but I've done my best to come to a settlement. With this series, I am very close to have selectable paravirt for x86_64, It applies ontop of today's x86 git, mm branch.

Hi, This series integrate the processor.h header. There are a lot of things that are deeply architectural differences between architectures, but I've done my best to come to a settlement. With this series, I am very close to have selectable paravirt for x86_64, It applies ontop of today's x86 git, mm branch.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). > For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on > some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. > For example on power,sparc64 and arc, cpu_relax can shift the CPU > towards other hardware threads in an SMT environment.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). > For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on > some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. > For example on power,sparc64 and arc, cpu_relax can shift the CPU > towards other hardware threads in an SMT environment.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:19:53PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 11/15/2016 01:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). > >> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on > >> some

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:19:53PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 11/15/2016 01:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> For spinning loops people do often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). > >> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on > >> some

On 10/21/2016 04:57 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:58:53 +0200 > >> For spinning loops people did often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). >> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on >> some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. For example on s390 >>

On 10/21/2016 04:57 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:58:53 +0200 > >> For spinning loops people did often use barrier() or cpu_relax(). >> For most architectures cpu_relax and barrier are the same, but on >> some architectures cpu_relax can add some latency. For example on s390 >>

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > stop_machine can take a very long time if the hypervisor does > overcommitment for guest CPUs. When waiting for "the one", lets > give up our CPU by using the new cpu_relax_yield. This seems something that would apply to most other virt stuff. Lets Cc a few more lists for that. > Signed-off-by:

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > stop_machine can take a very long time if the hypervisor does > overcommitment for guest CPUs. When waiting for "the one", lets > give up our CPU by using the new cpu_relax_yield. This seems something that would apply to most other virt stuff. Lets Cc a few more lists for that. > Signed-off-by:

On 02/26/2016 09:42 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer or socket receive > queue for a while at the end of tx/rx processing. The maximum time > spent on polling were specified through a new kind of vring ioctl. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > --- > drivers/vhost/net.c | 79

On 02/26/2016 09:42 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer or socket receive > queue for a while at the end of tx/rx processing. The maximum time > spent on polling were specified through a new kind of vring ioctl. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > --- > drivers/vhost/net.c | 79