From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Linux spin lock enhancement on xen
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:09:22 +0100
Message-ID: <C891D252.1E4BD%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
References: <4C6C0C3D.2070508@goop.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C6C0C3D.2070508@goop.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 18/08/2010 17:37, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> I don't see why the guest should micromanage Xen's scheduler decisions.
> If a VCPU is waiting for another VCPU and can put itself to sleep in the
> meantime, then its up to Xen to take advantage of that newly freed PCPU
> to schedule something.  It may decide to run something in your domain
> that's runnable, or it may decide to run something else.  There's no
> reason why the spinlock holder is the best VCPU to run overall, or even
> the best VCPU in your domain.
> 
> My view is you should just put any VCPU which has nothing to do to
> sleep, and let Xen sort out the scheduling of the remainder.

Yeah, I'm no fan of yield or yield-to type operations. I'd reserve the right
to implement both of them as no-op.

 -- Keir