All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@linux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>,
	Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Xen devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Thomas Friebel <thomas.friebel@amd.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:28:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080709122852.GA30579@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080707190749.299430659@goop.org>


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> My experiments show that using a Xen-specific lock helps guest 
> performance a bit (reduction in elapsed and system time in a kernbench 
> run), but most significantly, reduces overall physical CPU consumption 
> by 10%, and so increases overall system scalability.

that's rather impressive and looks nice, considering the fairly low 
impact.

as there were no fundamental objections in this thread i've created a 
tip/x86/paravirt-spinlocks topic branch for these patches and started 
testing them.

i based the topic branch on tip/xen-64bit, so you should be able to get 
the latest code by doing:

  git-merge tip/x86/paravirt-spinlocks

on tip/master.

	Ingo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	Xen devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@linux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>,
	Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Friebel <thomas.friebel@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:28:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080709122852.GA30579@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080707190749.299430659@goop.org>


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> My experiments show that using a Xen-specific lock helps guest 
> performance a bit (reduction in elapsed and system time in a kernbench 
> run), but most significantly, reduces overall physical CPU consumption 
> by 10%, and so increases overall system scalability.

that's rather impressive and looks nice, considering the fairly low 
impact.

as there were no fundamental objections in this thread i've created a 
tip/x86/paravirt-spinlocks topic branch for these patches and started 
testing them.

i based the topic branch on tip/xen-64bit, so you should be able to get 
the latest code by doing:

  git-merge tip/x86/paravirt-spinlocks

on tip/master.

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-07-09 12:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-07-07 19:07 [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] x86/paravirt: add hooks for spinlock operations Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] paravirt: introduce a "lock-byte" spinlock implementation Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] xen: use lock-byte " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] xen: implement Xen-specific spinlocks Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-07 19:07   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  6:37   ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08  6:37   ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08  7:15     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  7:15       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  7:30       ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08  7:30       ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08  7:15     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  0:29 ` [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks Rusty Russell
2008-07-08  0:37   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  0:37   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  0:37     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  1:01     ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-08  1:01     ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-08  4:51   ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-08  4:51   ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-08  4:51     ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-08  5:28     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  5:28       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  5:28     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-08  0:29 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-09 12:28 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-07-09 12:28   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 12:35   ` [patch] x86: paravirt spinlocks, !CONFIG_SMP build fixes (was: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks) Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 12:35     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 12:35   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 12:39   ` [patch] x86: paravirt spinlocks, modular build fix " Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 12:39     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 12:39   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 13:33   ` [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 13:33   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 13:33     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 13:49     ` [patch] x86, paravirt-spinlocks: fix boot hang (was: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks) Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 13:49       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 15:55       ` [patch] x86, paravirt-spinlocks: fix boot hang Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-09 19:26         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 19:26         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 19:26           ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 15:55       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-09 13:49     ` [patch] x86, paravirt-spinlocks: fix boot hang (was: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks) Ingo Molnar
2008-07-09 12:28 ` [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks Ingo Molnar
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-07-07 19:07 Jeremy Fitzhardinge

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080709122852.GA30579@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=avi@qumranet.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=clameter@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=ptesarik@suse.cz \
    --cc=thomas.friebel@amd.com \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.