[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
- To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:58:37 +0300
- Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>, X86 <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:14:07 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 05/07/2012 04:53 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> Is the improvement so low, because PLE is interfering with the patch, or
>> because PLE already does a good job?
>>
>
>
> It is because PLE already does a good job (of not burning cpu). The
> 1-3% improvement is because, patchset knows atleast who is next to hold
> lock, which is lacking in PLE.
>
Not good. Solving a problem in software that is already solved by
hardware? It's okay if there are no costs involved, but here we're
introducing a new ABI that we'll have to maintain for a long time.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
