[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110119183914.GB7235@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:09:14 +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>,
suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] x86/ticketlock: add slowpath logic
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:31:06AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> I think you're probably right; when I last tested this code, it was
> hanging in at about the rate this kind of race would cause. And in my
> previous analysis of similar schemes (the current pv spinlock code), it
> was always correct to do the "slowpath" test after doing do the unlock.
>
> *But* I haven't yet had the chance to specifically go through and
> analyse your patch in detail to make sure there's nothing else going on,
> so take this as provisional.
>
> How much testing have you given it?
I have tested quite extensively with booting a 16-vcpu guest (on a 16-pcpu host)
and running kernel compine (with 32-threads). Without this patch, I had
difficulty booting/shutting-down successfully (it would hang mid-way).
- 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