From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for
	linux guests running on KVM hypervisor
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:37:34 -0400
Message-ID: <20130805153734.GJ3321@phenom.dumpdata.com>
References: <51EFCA42.5020009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<51F0ED31.3040200@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20130725091509.GA22735@redhat.com>
	<51F0F202.5090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<51F7ED20.80202@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20130731062440.GK28372@redhat.com>
	<51FA1087.9080908@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20130802092539.GB28327@gmail.com>
	<20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.com>
	<20130805094603.GA29303@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, drjones@redhat.com,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org,
	hpa@zytor.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	mingo@redhat.com, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@redhat.com,
	stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu,
	avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com,
	gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com, attilio.rao@citrix.com,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130805094603.GA29303@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Ingo,
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this 
> > > > looks good now to you.
> > > 
> > > I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many 
> > > people left the discussion in disgust? Was it done to drive away as 
> > > many reviewers as possible?
> > > 
> > > Anyway, see my other reply, the measurement results seem hard to 
> > > interpret and inconclusive at the moment.
> >
> > That result was only for patch 18 of the series, not pvspinlock in 
> > general.
> 
> Okay - I've re-read the performance numbers and they are impressive, so no 
> objections from me.
> 
> The x86 impact seems to be a straightforward API change, with most of the 
> changes on the virtualization side. So:
> 
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> 
> I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a 
> separate branch because it changes Xen as well?

May I suggest an alternate way - perhaps you can put them in a tip/spinlock
tree for v3.12 - since both KVM and Xen maintainers have acked and carefully
reviewed them?