Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Fri Mar 30 2012 - 19:05:07 EST
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So if a guest exits due to an external event it's easy to inspect the
> > state of that guest and avoid to schedule away when it was interrupted
> > in a spinlock held section. That guest/host shared state needs to be
> On a large system under high contention sleeping can perform surprisingly
> well. pthread mutexes have a tendency to beat kernel spinlocks there.
> So avoiding sleeping locks completely (that is what pv locks are
> essentially) is not necessarily that good.
Care to back that up with numbers and proper trace evidence instead of
I've stared at RT traces and throughput problems on _LARGE_ machines
long enough to know what I'm talking about and I can provide evidence
in a split second.
> Your proposal is probably only a good idea on low contention
> and relatively small systems.
Sigh, you have really no fcking clue what you are talking about.
On RT we observed scalabilty problems way before hardware was
available to expose them. So what's your point?
Put up or shut up, really!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/