[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51ADC859.6060507@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:28:33 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: gleb@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org, x86@...nel.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, peterz@...radead.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com,
attilio.rao@...rix.com, ouyang@...pitt.edu, gregkh@...e.de,
agraf@...e.de, chegu_vinod@...com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
avi.kivity@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com, drjones@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
On 06/02/2013 01:44 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
> to the spinlocks.
>
> This needs to be done at the top level (so the level you're removing)
>
> However I don't like the pv mechanism very much and would
> be fine with using an static key hook in the main path
> like I do for all the other lock types.
>
> It also uses interrupt ops patching, for that it would
> be still needed though.
>
Hi Andi, IIUC, you are okay with the current approach overall right?
--
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