From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753253Ab1JYSXw (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:23:52 -0400 Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:33100 "EHLO e23smtp08.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752991Ab1JYSXt (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:23:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4EA6FEC2.1060209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:54:02 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110928 Fedora/3.1.15-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Avi Kivity CC: 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock 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> In-Reply-To: <20111024135032.GB10634@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 11102508-5140-0000-0000-0000001CEE1A Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/24/2011 07:20 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > * Avi Kivity [2011-10-24 15:09:25]: > >>> I guess with that change, we can also dropthe need for other hypercall >>> introduced in this patch (kvm_pv_kick_cpu_op()). Essentially a vcpu sleeping >>> because of HLT instruction can be woken up by a IPI issued by vcpu releasing a >>> lock. >> >> Not if interrupts are disabled. > > Hmm yes ..so we need a kick hypercall then. > So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point, to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.