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

[Ingo Molnar]

* 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.
> 
> 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.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/