From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zhai, Edwin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] increase ple_gap default to 64 Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:35:37 +0800 Message-ID: <4D233039.8010509@intel.com> References: <20110103101907.2926ecca@annuminas.surriel.com> <4D229221.8070305@intel.com> <4D232C20.80306@redhat.com> <4D232EB1.1000304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rik van Riel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "mtosatti@redhat.com" To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D232EB1.1000304@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/04/2011 04:18 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > >> >> So should I resend the patch with the ple_gap default >> changed to 128, or are you willing to ack the current >> patch? >> >> > > I think 128 is safer given than 41 was too low. We have to take into > account newer cpus and slower spin loops. If the spin loop does a cache > ping-pong (which would be a bad, bad possible, implementation), even 128 > might be too low. > Agree with Avi. Let us use 128 at this point. Thanks, edwin