[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

On 05/07/2012 07:28 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
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.

Hmm agree that being a step ahead of mighty hardware (and just an
improvement of 1-3%) is no good for long term (where PLE is future).

Having said that, it is hard for me to resist saying :
 bottleneck is somewhere else on PLE m/c and IMHO answer would be
combination of paravirt-spinlock + pv-flush-tb.

But I need to come up with good number to argue in favour of the claim.

PS: Nikunj had experimented that pv-flush tlb + paravirt-spinlock is a win on PLE where only one of them alone could not prove the benefit.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.