From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:10:30 +0530 Message-ID: <51DD482E.30605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1372171802.3804.30.camel@oc2024037011.ibm.com> <51CAAA26.4090204@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130626113744.GA6300@hawk.usersys.redhat.com> <20130626125240.GY18508@redhat.com> <51CAEF45.3010203@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130626161130.GB18152@redhat.com> <51CB2AD9.5060508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51DBD3C2.2040807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130710103325.GP24941@redhat.com> <20130710104047.GP25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130710104717.GR24941@redhat.com> <51DD455D.4000701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51DD455D.4000701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Gleb Natapov , Peter Zijlstra Cc: jeremy@goop.org, gregkh@suse.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org, hpa@zytor.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrew Jones , konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com, attilio.rao@citrix.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org dropping stephen becuase of bounce On 07/10/2013 04:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> >>> Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb. >>> >> Good idea. >> >>>>> Ingo, Gleb, >>>>> >>>>> From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results >>>>> are >>>>> pro-pvspinlock. >>>>> Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable >>>>> candidate?. >>>>> >>>> I need to spend more time reviewing it :) The problem with PV >>>> interfaces >>>> is that they are easy to add but hard to get rid of if better solution >>>> (HW or otherwise) appears. >>> >>> How so? Just make sure the registration for the PV interface is >>> optional; that >>> is, allow it to fail. A guest that fails the PV setup will either >>> have to try >>> another PV interface or fall back to 'native'. >>> Forgot to add. Yes currently pvspinlocks are not enabled by default and also, we have jump_label mechanism to enable it. [...]