From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: jeremy@goop.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, hpa@zytor.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
gleb@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
riel@redhat.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, oleg@redhat.com,
davej@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp,
chegu_vinod@hp.com, waiman.long@hp.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:05:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140701080537.GH6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1403947024-3193-1-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 02:47:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> In virtualized environment there are mainly three problems
> related to spinlocks that affects performance.
> 1. LHP (lock holder preemption)
> 2. Lock Waiter Preemption (LWP)
> 3. Starvation/fairness
>
> Though Ticketlocks solve fairness problem it worsens LWP, LHP problems. Though
> pv-ticketlocks tried to address these problems we can further improve at the
> cost of relaxed fairness. The following patch tries to achieve that by grouping
> (batched) ticketlocks.
And here I stop reading and ignore this patch, right?
Why should I look at this?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
konrad.wilk@oracle.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, gleb@redhat.com,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
waiman.long@hp.com, riel@redhat.com, davej@redhat.com,
oleg@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, jeremy@goop.org,
paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
jasowang@redhat.com, fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, mtosatti@redhat.com,
chegu_vinod@hp.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:05:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140701080537.GH6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1403947024-3193-1-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 02:47:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> In virtualized environment there are mainly three problems
> related to spinlocks that affects performance.
> 1. LHP (lock holder preemption)
> 2. Lock Waiter Preemption (LWP)
> 3. Starvation/fairness
>
> Though Ticketlocks solve fairness problem it worsens LWP, LHP problems. Though
> pv-ticketlocks tried to address these problems we can further improve at the
> cost of relaxed fairness. The following patch tries to achieve that by grouping
> (batched) ticketlocks.
And here I stop reading and ignore this patch, right?
Why should I look at this?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-01 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-28 9:17 [RFC PATCH v2] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock Raghavendra K T
2014-06-28 9:17 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-06-28 9:17 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-07-01 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 9:44 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 9:44 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 11:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 11:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 11:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 9:44 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-07-01 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-06-28 9:17 Raghavendra K T
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=20140701080537.GH6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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.