From: Raghavendra K T <raghukt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
x86@kernel.org, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
Xen <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:38:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EA85A9D.5060203@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EA7E21B.8020805@redhat.com>
On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing Ryan also
>>
>> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
>> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
>
> Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
>
Basically I was curious whether we can do more better with your directed
yield discussions in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/2/106 .
I felt we can get little more improvement with doing directed yield to
lock-holder in case of LHP than sleeping. But I may be wrong.
So wanted to get the feedback, on whether I am thinking in right
direction.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Raghavendra K T <raghukt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
x86@kernel.org, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
Xen <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ryan Harper
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:38:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EA85A9D.5060203@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EA7E21B.8020805@redhat.com>
On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing Ryan also
>>
>> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
>> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
>
> Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
>
Basically I was curious whether we can do more better with your directed
yield discussions in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/2/106 .
I felt we can get little more improvement with doing directed yield to
lock-holder in case of LHP than sleeping. But I may be wrong.
So wanted to get the feedback, on whether I am thinking in right
direction.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Raghavendra K T <raghukt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
x86@kernel.org, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
Xen <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ryan
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:38:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EA85A9D.5060203@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EA7E21B.8020805@redhat.com>
On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing Ryan also
>>
>> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
>> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
>
> Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
>
Basically I was curious whether we can do more better with your directed
yield discussions in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/2/106 .
I felt we can get little more improvement with doing directed yield to
lock-holder in case of LHP than sleeping. But I may be wrong.
So wanted to get the feedback, on whether I am thinking in right
direction.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-26 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-23 19:03 [PATCH RFC V2 0/5] kvm : Paravirt-spinlock support for KVM guests Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:04 ` [PATCH RFC V2 1/5] debugfs: Add support to print u32 array in debugfs Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:04 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 22:20 ` Greg KH
2011-10-24 9:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:04 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:04 ` [PATCH RFC V2 2/5] debugfs: Renaming of xen functions and change unsigned to u32 Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:04 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 22:19 ` Greg KH
2011-10-24 9:28 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 9:38 ` Greg KH
2011-10-23 19:04 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:05 ` [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 10:01 ` Sasha Levin
2011-10-24 10:01 ` Sasha Levin
2011-10-24 11:00 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 11:00 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 11:00 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 10:14 ` Avi Kivity
2011-10-24 11:20 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 12:27 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2011-10-24 13:09 ` Avi Kivity
2011-10-24 13:50 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2011-10-25 18:24 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-26 10:34 ` Avi Kivity
2011-10-26 19:08 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2011-10-26 19:08 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-26 19:08 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-27 10:17 ` Avi Kivity
2011-10-27 10:17 ` Avi Kivity
2011-10-26 20:09 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-26 20:09 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-26 20:09 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-23 19:05 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:05 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:07 ` [PATCH RFC V2 4/5] kvm guest : Added configuration support to enable debug information for KVM Guests Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 10:01 ` Sasha Levin
2011-10-24 18:45 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 18:45 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 18:45 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 10:01 ` Sasha Levin
2011-10-24 10:15 ` Avi Kivity
2011-10-25 18:11 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-25 18:30 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-23 19:07 ` [PATCH RFC V2 5/5] kvm guest : pv-ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-23 19:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 10:01 ` Sasha Levin
2011-10-24 9:33 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 9:33 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-24 9:33 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-25 18:34 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-26 19:23 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-26 19:46 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-26 19:55 ` Raghavendra K T
2011-10-25 18:35 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-10-26 19:25 ` 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=4EA85A9D.5060203@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghukt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=ryanh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=suzuki@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.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.