[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <CAJocwce9e=fcnJomctC82H9t5EUMaTStzLSgqoaUoAzbYm3p+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:31:14 -0400
From: Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
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, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Which pv_lock? The current pv spinlock mess is basically the old unfair
> thing. The later patch series I referred to earlier implemented a
> paravirt ticket lock, that should perform much better under overcommit.
>
Yes, it is a paravirt *ticket* spinck. I got the patch from
Raghavendra K T through email
http://lwn.net/Articles/495597/
--
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