linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4EA85A9D.5060203@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:38:13 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghukt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Xen <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suzuki Poulose <suzuki@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ryan Harper <ryanh@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support
 pv-ticketlock

On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing Ryan also
>>
>> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
>> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
>
> Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
>
Basically I was curious whether we can do more better with your directed 
yield discussions in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/2/106 .

I felt we can get little more improvement with doing directed yield to
lock-holder in case of LHP than sleeping. But I may be wrong.

So wanted to get the feedback, on whether I am thinking in right
direction.



--
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/