[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140529064606.GH19143@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:46:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
waiman.long@...com, davej@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
x86@...nel.org, jeremy@...p.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, jasowang@...hat.com, fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, riel@...hat.com,
mtosatti@...hat.com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Implement Batched (group) ticket lock
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:46:39PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> In virtualized environment there are mainly three problems
> related to spinlocks that affect performance.
> 1. LHP (lock holder preemption)
> 2. Lock Waiter Preemption (LWP)
> 3. Starvation/fairness
>
> Though ticketlocks solve the fairness problem, it worsens LWP, LHP problems.
> pv-ticketlocks tried to address this. But we can further improve at the
> cost of relaxed fairness.
So I really hate the idea of having different locks for paravirt and
normal kernels.
And we're looking to move to that queued lock for normal kernels.
--
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