|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls t
|
To: |
Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock |
|
From: |
Raghavendra K T <raghukt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:38:13 +0530 |
|
Cc: |
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Suzuki Poulose <suzuki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ryan Harper <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:58:58 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<4EA7E21B.8020805@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<20111023190307.16364.35381.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111023190558.16364.2136.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA53A7D.300@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111024122734.GA10634@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA56385.9040302@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111024135032.GB10634@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA6FEC2.1060209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA7E21B.8020805@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110928 Fedora/3.1.15-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.15 |
On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing Ryan also
So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
Basically I was curious whether we can do more better with your directed
yield discussions in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/2/106 .
I felt we can get little more improvement with doing directed yield to
lock-holder in case of LHP than sleeping. But I may be wrong.
So wanted to get the feedback, on whether I am thinking in right
direction.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home