[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1366663714.8337.12.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:48:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@...il.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Karen Noel <knoel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Preemptable Ticket Spinlock
On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 22:44 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 16:32 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > IIRC one of the reasons was that the performance improvement wasn't
> > as obvious. Rescheduling VCPUs takes a fair amount of time, quite
> > probably more than the typical hold time of a spinlock.
>
> IIRC it would spin for a while before blocking..
>
> /me goes re-read some of that thread...
>
> Ah, its because PLE is curing most of it.. !PLE it had huge gains but
> apparently nobody cares about !PLE hardware anymore :-)
Hmm.. it looked like under light overcommit the paravirt ticket lock
still had some gain (~10%) and of course it brings the fairness thing
which is always good.
I can only imagine the mess unfair + vcpu preemption can bring to guest
tasks.
--
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