[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1275563199.2383.1873.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:06:39 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: john cooper <john.cooper@...rd-harmonic.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, 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, john cooper <john.cooper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:36 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Collecting the contention/usage statistics on a per spinlock
> > basis seems complex. I believe a practical approximation
> > to this are adaptive mutexes where upon hitting a spin
> > time threshold, punt and let the scheduler reconcile fairness.
>
> That would probably work, except: how do you get the
> adaptive spinlock into a paravirt op without slowing
> down a standard kernel?
It only ever comes into play in the case where the spinlock is contended
anyway -- surely it shouldn't be _that_ much of a performance issue?
See the way that ppc64 handles it -- on a machine with overcommitted
virtual cpus, it will call __spin_yield (arch/powerpc/lib/locks.c) on
contention, which may cause the virtual CPU to donate its hypervisor
timeslice to the vCPU which is actually holding the lock in question.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com Intel Corporation
--
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