[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100603130450.GA26607@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 18:34:50 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, 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,
tglx@...utronix.de, mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 06:28:21PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Ok got it - although that approach is not advisable in some cases for ex: when
> the lock holder vcpu and lock acquired vcpu are scheduled on the same pcpu by
> the hypervisor (which was experimented with in [1] where they foud a huge hit in
> perf).
1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/13/464
- vatsa
--
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