[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1242809657.26820.559.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:54:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][KVM][retry 3] Add support for Pause Filtering to AMD
SVM
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:49 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> That said, I still thoroughly dislike this whole approach.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Can you explain why? We have a thread that has detected that it's
> >> spinning. Keeping on spinning is a waste of cpu time. Why not let
> >> something else use the cpu?
> >>
> >
> > Because its a polling interface. I much prefer it if we were to get a
> > wakeup notification when the vcpu holding the lock releases it.
> >
>
> It's a fully virtualized guest. There's no way to get this without
> patching the guest kernel.
Yes there is.. virtualized monitor-wait stuff coupled with a
monitor-wait based spinlock implementation.
Once we go change silicon, you might as well do it right.
--
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