Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
From: Nikunj A Dadhania
Date: Tue May 08 2012 - 03:17:41 EST
On Mon, 7 May 2012 22:42:30 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
Do not have PLE numbers yet for pvflush and pvspinlock.
I have seen on Non-PLE having pvflush and pvspinlock patches -
kernbench, ebizzy, specjbb, hackbench and dbench all of them improved.
I am chasing a race currently on pv-flush path, it is causing
file-system corruption. I will post these number along with my v2 post.
> > > I'd like to see those numbers, then.
> > >
> > > Ingo, please hold on the kvm-specific patches, meanwhile.
> > I'll hold off on the whole thing - frankly, we don't want this
> > kind of Xen-only complexity. If KVM can make use of PLE then Xen
> > ought to be able to do it as well.
> > If both Xen and KVM makes good use of it then that's a different
> > matter.
> Aside of that, it's kinda strange that a dude named "Nikunj" is
> referenced in the argument chain, but I can't find him on the CC list.
/me waves my hand
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/