[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130805153734.GJ3321@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:37:34 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
jeremy@...p.org, 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,
andi@...stfloor.org, attilio.rao@...rix.com, ouyang@...pitt.edu,
gregkh@...e.de, agraf@...e.de, chegu_vinod@...com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@...il.com,
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 V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for
linux guests running on KVM hypervisor
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Ingo,
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this
> > > > looks good now to you.
> > >
> > > I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many
> > > people left the discussion in disgust? Was it done to drive away as
> > > many reviewers as possible?
> > >
> > > Anyway, see my other reply, the measurement results seem hard to
> > > interpret and inconclusive at the moment.
> >
> > That result was only for patch 18 of the series, not pvspinlock in
> > general.
>
> Okay - I've re-read the performance numbers and they are impressive, so no
> objections from me.
>
> The x86 impact seems to be a straightforward API change, with most of the
> changes on the virtualization side. So:
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
>
> I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a
> separate branch because it changes Xen as well?
May I suggest an alternate way - perhaps you can put them in a tip/spinlock
tree for v3.12 - since both KVM and Xen maintainers have acked and carefully
reviewed them?
--
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