[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <932951750.20131015234558@eikelenboom.it>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:45:58 +0200
From: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Kconfig help entry for CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCK
Hi Raghavendra,
Since the ticketlock series have landed in this mergewindow (thanks :-) ) the
help accompanying the Kconfig entry doesn't seem to reflect the current state well.
- Wasn't the whole purpose of the ticketlock series to mitigate this 5% performance hit to something
far less, so distro kernels could enable this for their normal kernels ?
I don't have the exact performance figures though.
- Perhaps the suggestion to enable this for supported hypervisors (Xen and KVM ?) could be added ?
--
Sander
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS:
Paravirtualized spinlocks allow a pvops backend to replace the
spinlock implementation with something virtualization-friendly
(for example, block the virtual CPU rather than spinning).
Unfortunately the downside is an up to 5% performance hit on
native kernels, with various workloads.
If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
Symbol: PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS [=y]
Type : boolean
Prompt: Paravirtualization layer for spinlocks
Location:
-> Processor type and features
-> Linux guest support (HYPERVISOR_GUEST [=y])
-> Enable paravirtualization code (PARAVIRT [=y])
Defined at arch/x86/Kconfig:632
Depends on: HYPERVISOR_GUEST [=y] && PARAVIRT [=y] && SMP [=y]
Selects: UNINLINE_SPIN_UNLOCK [=y]
--
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