[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289855312.2109.555.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:08:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: ticket lock rewrite and paravirtualization
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 13:02 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> As a heuristic, it shouldn't be too bad performancewise, since
> (handwaving) if ticketholder N has entered the slowpath, then its likely
> that N+1 will as well.
Yes, esp. if the whole slow unlock path takes more cycles than you spin
for to begin with.
I think this approach is definitely worth trying.
--
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