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

[Raghavendra K T]

On 05/07/2012 07:19 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 04:46 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > * Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  [2012-05-07 19:08:51]:
> >
> > > I 'll get hold of a PLE mc  and come up with the numbers soon. but I
> > > 'll expect the improvement around 1-3% as it was in last version.
> >
> > Deferring preemption (when vcpu is holding lock) may give us better than 1-3%
> > results on PLE hardware. Something worth trying IMHO.
>
> 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.

--
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/