[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110119164432.GA30669@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:14:33 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.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@...nel.dk>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] PV ticket locks without expanding spinlock
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:08:31PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a revised version of the pvticket lock series.
The 3-patch series to follow this email extends KVM-hypervisor and Linux guest
running on KVM-hypervisor to support pv-ticket spinlocks.
Two hypercalls are being introduced in KVM hypervisor, one that allows a
vcpu (spinning on a lock) to block and another that allows a vcpu to kick
another out of blocking state.
Patches are against 2.6.37 mainline kernel. I also don't yet have numbers
at this time to show benefit of pv-ticketlocks - I would think the benefit
should be similar across hypervisors (Xen and KVM in this case).
- 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