From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:27:12 +0530 Message-ID: <51FB9088.8010302@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <51EFC1D4.9060800@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130724120647.GG16400@redhat.com> <51EFCA42.5020009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51F0ED31.3040200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130725091509.GA22735@redhat.com> <51F0F202.5090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51F7ED20.80202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130731062440.GK28372@redhat.com> <51FA1087.9080908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130802092539.GB28327@gmail.com> <20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.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 , Ingo Molnar , peterz@infradead.org Cc: jeremy@goop.org, gregkh@suse.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, drjones@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, riel@redhat.com, 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 On 08/02/2013 03:24 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> Ingo, >>> >>> Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this >>> looks good now to you. >> >> I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many people >> left the discussion in disgust? Was it done to drive away as many >> reviewers as possible? Ingo, Peter, Sorry for the confusion caused because of nesting. I should have trimmed it as Peter also pointed in other thread. will ensure that is future mails. >> Anyway, see my other reply, the measurement results seem hard to interpret >> and inconclusive at the moment. As Gleb already pointed, patch1-17 as a whole giving good performance improvement. It was only the patch 18, Gleb had concerns.