[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BCA0646.1000603@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:04:38 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa.ml@...il.com>,
"Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"Yang, Xiaowei" <xiaowei.yang@...el.com>,
"Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@...el.com>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: VM performance issue in KVM guests.
On 04/15/2010 04:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Certainly that has even greater potential for Linux guests. Note that
>> we spin on mutexes now, so we need to prevent preemption while the lock
>> owner is running.
>>
> either that, or disable spinning on (para) virt kernels.
What would you do instead?
Note we can't disable spinning on Windows or pre 2.6.36 kernels.
> Para virt
> kernels could possibly extend the thing by also checking to see if the
> owner's vcpu is running.
>
Certainly that's worth doing.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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