[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100603151558.GD4166@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:15:58 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
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 Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:06:39PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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?
The problem is fitting the state into the u32
Also "lightly contended" is not that uncommon.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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