From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755294AbbDINRj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:17:39 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59915 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753860AbbDINRf (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:17:35 -0400
Message-ID: <55267BA8.9060009@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 09:16:24 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Daniel J Blueman <daniel@numascale.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 16/16] unfair qspinlock: a queue based unfair lock
References: <1428517939-27968-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <20150409070146.GL27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150409070146.GL27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 04/09/2015 03:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
>> will be used if PV spinlock is not configured in or the hypervisor
>> isn't either KVM or Xen. The byte lock works fine with small guest
>> of just a few vCPUs. On a much larger guest, however, byte lock can
>> have serious performance problem.
> 
> Who cares?

There are some people out there running guests with dozens
of vCPUs. If the code exists to make those setups run better,
is there a good reason not to use it?

Having said that, only KVM and Xen seem to support very
large guests, and PV spinlock is available there.

I believe both VMware and Hyperv have a 32 VCPU limit, anyway.

-- 
All rights reversed