From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 18:34:50 +0530
Message-ID: <20100603130450.GA26607@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <4C053ACC.5020708@redhat.com>
 <20100601172730.GB11880@basil.fritz.box>
 <4C05C722.1010804@redhat.com>
 <20100602085055.GA14221@basil.fritz.box>
 <4C061DAB.6000804@redhat.com>
 <20100603042051.GA5953@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20100603103855.GG6822@laptop>
 <20100603120450.GH4035@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20100603123832.GL6822@laptop>
 <20100603125821.GJ4035@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@elte.hu,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mtosatti@redhat.com
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100603125821.GJ4035@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 06:28:21PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Ok got it - although that approach is not advisable in some cases for ex: when
> the lock holder vcpu and lock acquired vcpu are scheduled on the same pcpu by
> the hypervisor (which was experimented with in [1] where they foud a huge hit in
> perf).

1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/13/464

- vatsa