From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751828Ab1ADOfk (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:35:40 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:62837 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751727Ab1ADOfi (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 09:35:38 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,272,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="874301775" Message-ID: <4D233039.8010509@intel.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:35:37 +0800 From: "Zhai, Edwin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity CC: Rik van Riel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "mtosatti@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] increase ple_gap default to 64 References: <20110103101907.2926ecca@annuminas.surriel.com> <4D229221.8070305@intel.com> <4D232C20.80306@redhat.com> <4D232EB1.1000304@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D232EB1.1000304@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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