[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51761604.6080103@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:33:00 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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 04/23/2013 02:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 16:49 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Given the fairly high cost of rescheduling a VCPU (which is likely
>> to include an IPI), versus the short hold time of most spinlocks,
>> I have the strong suspicion that your approach would win.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/2/101
>
> If you schedule too often your SPIN_THRESHOLD is far too low.
>
> Anyway.. performance can't be that bad, otherwise Jeremey would have
> spend as much time on it as he did.
When I experimented last time ideal SPIN_THRESHOLD for PLE machine,
was around 4k, 8k. Jeremy's experiment was on a non-PLE machine AFAIK,
which complemented PLE feature in a nice way with 2k threshold.
--
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