From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:34:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA7E21B.8020805@redhat.com> References: <20111023190307.16364.35381.sendpatchset@oc5400248562.ibm.com> <20111023190558.16364.2136.sendpatchset@oc5400248562.ibm.com> <4EA53A7D.300@redhat.com> <20111024122734.GA10634@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA56385.9040302@redhat.com> <20111024135032.GB10634@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA6FEC2.1060209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Raghavendra K T , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "H. Peter Anvin" , Gleb Natapov , Virtualization , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , x86@kernel.org, KVM , Dave Jiang , Thomas Gleixner , Stefano Stabellini , Xen , Sedat Dilek , Yinghai Lu , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , LKML , Suzuki Poulose , Peter Zijlstra To: Raghavendra K T Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4EA6FEC2.1060209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > > So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point, > to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove. Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption? -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.