[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080709122852.GA30579@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:28:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@...ux-foundation.org>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Xen devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Thomas Friebel <thomas.friebel@....com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> My experiments show that using a Xen-specific lock helps guest
> performance a bit (reduction in elapsed and system time in a kernbench
> run), but most significantly, reduces overall physical CPU consumption
> by 10%, and so increases overall system scalability.
that's rather impressive and looks nice, considering the fairly low
impact.
as there were no fundamental objections in this thread i've created a
tip/x86/paravirt-spinlocks topic branch for these patches and started
testing them.
i based the topic branch on tip/xen-64bit, so you should be able to get
the latest code by doing:
git-merge tip/x86/paravirt-spinlocks
on tip/master.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists