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

[Thomas Gleixner]

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.
> > 
> > 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.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/