Re: [PATCH RFC V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support forlinux guests running on KVM hypervisor

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Ingo,
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this 
> > > > looks good now to you.
> > > 
> > > I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many 
> > > people left the discussion in disgust? Was it done to drive away as 
> > > many reviewers as possible?
> > > 
> > > Anyway, see my other reply, the measurement results seem hard to 
> > > interpret and inconclusive at the moment.
> >
> > That result was only for patch 18 of the series, not pvspinlock in 
> > general.
> 
> Okay - I've re-read the performance numbers and they are impressive, so no 
> objections from me.
> 
> The x86 impact seems to be a straightforward API change, with most of the 
> changes on the virtualization side. So:
> 
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a 
> separate branch because it changes Xen as well?

May I suggest an alternate way - perhaps you can put them in a tip/spinlock
tree for v3.12 - since both KVM and Xen maintainers have acked and carefully
reviewed them?
--
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/