From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] stop_machine: make stop_machine_run more virtualization
 friendly
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 15:58:32 +0100
Message-ID: <48231518.9010209@goop.org>
References: <200805081520.38310.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <48230137.9090705@goop.org> <200805081641.20572.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1763327AbYEHO6v@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <200805081641.20572.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> I really like 64 guest cpus as a good testcase for all kind of things. 
>   

Sure, I do the same kind of thing.

>> I think x86 (at least) is now using ticket locks, which is fair.  Which 
>> kernel are you seeing this problem on?
>>     
>
> Sorry, forgot to mention. Its kvm.git from 2 days ago on s390.
>   

And on s390 cpu_relax yields the vcpu?  That's not common behaviour 
across architectures.

    J