[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CDDBBD3.5050903@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:12:35 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: ticket lock rewrite and paravirtualization
On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> - with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
> head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
> trying to lock, and we can do a kick. Unfortunately this
> generates very high level of redundant kicks, because the
> waiting CPU might not have blocked yet (which is the common
> case)
>
How high is "very high" here -- most of the time (so that any mitigation
on the slow patch is useless)?
-hpa
--
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