Re: [PATCH] increase ple_gap default to 64

Zhai, Edwin
2011-01-04T14:35:40Z

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