[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4D3813E5020000780002D5FA@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:52:21 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
"Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
<suzuki@...ibm.com>, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...nel.dk>, <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Linux Virtualization" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"Avi Kivity" <avi@...hat.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] x86/ticketlock: add slowpath logic
>>> On 19.01.11 at 19:55, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> On 01/19/2011 10:39 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Sounds good. But I like to test with "make -j 100-200" to really give
> things a workout.
Hmm, in my experience, heavily over-committing CPUs (e.g. a
domain with double or more the vCPU-s that the system has
pCPU-s, or the pCPU-s the domain is allowed to run on) is a
much better test for eventual problems in the spin lock code
paths.
Jan
--
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