[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C2B180E.9060104@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:10:22 +0200
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
ksrinivasan <ksrinivasan@...ell.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks - improve
yield behavior on Xen
On 06/30/2010 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 30.06.10 at 10:11, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>> On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 15:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>>> The (only) additional overhead this introduces for native execution is
>>> the writing of the owning CPU in the lock acquire paths.
>>>
>> Uhm, and growing the size of spinlock_t to 6 (or 8 bytes when aligned)
>> bytes when NR_CPUS>256.
>>
> Indeed, I should have mentioned that. Will do so in an eventual
> next version.
>
Rather than increasing the lock size, why not just disable the
enlightenment if the number of (possible) cpus is > 256? I don't think
a VM will ever have that many cpus, so it will only apply in the case of
booting the kernel on large physical machine.
J
--
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