Re: [PATCH][KVM][retry 1] Add support for Pause Filtering to AMDSVM

[Avi Kivity]

Langsdorf, Mark wrote:
> > The Linux spinlock is
> >
> >              "1:\t"
> >              "cmpl %0, %2\n\t"
> >              "je 2f\n\t"
> >              "rep ; nop\n\t"
> >              "movzwl %1, %2\n\t"
> >              /* don't need lfence here, because loads are in-order */
> >              "jmp 1b\n"
> >
> > 5 instructions, maybe 2-3 cycles, not counting any special rep nop 
> > overhead.  Mark, any idea what the spin time is?
> >     
>
> If I'm understanding the question right, the contested
> spin locks are being held for 5K to 10K iterations of PAUSE.
> So 10K to 30K cycles if your estimate of the spinlock
> cycle time is correct.  
>   

My estimate is not very reliable.  Can you measure this?

btw, I'd expect you'd get much more significant improvement on Windows.  
Booting 16-vcpu Windows 2008 x64 took forever on my dual core host, and 
my guess is spinlock contention.  Of course you'd need a working yield, 
as Ingo said schedule() does very little.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/