From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kvm hypervisor : Add hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:04:30 +0530 Message-ID: <20110120143430.GA17815@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20110119164432.GA30669@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110119171239.GB726@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1295457672.28776.144.camel@laptop> <4D373340.60608@goop.org> <20110120115958.GB11177@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1295530906.28776.171.camel@laptop> Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nick Piggin , Mathieu Desnoyers , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang , Eric Dumazet , Jan Beulich , Avi Kivity , Xen-devel , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Virtualization , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , kvm@vger.kernel.org, suzuki@in.ibm.com To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1295530906.28776.171.camel@laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:41:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 17:29 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > > > If we had a yield-to [1] sort of interface _and_ information on which vcpu > > owns a lock, then lock-spinners can yield-to the owning vcpu, > > and then I'd nak it for being stupid ;-) > > really, yield*() is retarded, never even consider using it. If you've > got the actual owner you can do full blown PI, which is tons better than > a 'do-something-random' call. Yes definitely that would be much better than yield-to. > The only reason the whole non-virt pause loop filtering muck uses it is > because it really doesn't know anything, and do-something is pretty much > all it can do. Its a broken interface. - vatsa