[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10707.1275413954@localhost>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:39:14 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
mingo@...e.hu, npiggin@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:52:28 +0300, Avi Kivity said:
> On 06/01/2010 07:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> Your new code would starve again, right?
> > Try it on a NUMA system with unfair memory.
> We are running everything on NUMA (since all modern machines are now
> NUMA). At what scale do the issues become observable?
My 6-month-old laptop is NUMA? Comes as a surprise to me, and to the
perfectly-running NUMA=n kernel I'm running.
Or did you mean a less broad phrase than "all modern machines"?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists