From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC -v3 PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:24:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1294223054.2016.235.camel@laptop> References: <20110105110837.B62A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <4D242D60.9060301@redhat.com> <20110105173823.B658.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Avi Kivity , Rik van Riel , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Mike Galbraith , Chris Wright To: KOSAKI Motohiro Return-path: Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:50025 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751398Ab1AEKX6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 05:23:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110105173823.B658.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:40 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > If you are interesting GIL mess and issue, please feel free to ask more. > > > > I suggest looking into an explicit round-robin scheme, where each thread > > adds itself to a queue and an unlock wakes up the first waiter. > > I'm sure you haven't try your scheme. but I did. It's slow. Of course it is, but then your locking scheme (GIL) is the problem, not the locking constructs.