From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: busy-spin detector Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:08:56 +0530 Message-ID: <20100611173856.GJ5191@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20100611022551.GA16223@amt.cnet> <20100611140634.GI5191@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , kvm To: "Huang, Zhiteng" Return-path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:40445 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752950Ab0FKRjC (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:39:02 -0400 Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o5BHbTjb009859 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:37:29 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o5BHd1Ls124006 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:39:01 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o5BHd1SM016732 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:39:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Huang, Zhiteng [2010-06-11 23:03:25]: > PLE-like design may be more generic than para-virtish when it comes to Windows guest. > Hmm.. sounds reasonable > Is this busy-spin actually a Lock Holder Preemption problem? > Yep, I was hinting towards solving that problem. -- Three Cheers, Balbir