[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141024220423.GB10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:04:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 09/11] pvqspinlock, x86: Add para-virtualization
support
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves
> which should be negligible in the overall performance . The additional
> icache pressure, however, may have some impact on performance. I was trying
> to balance the performance of the pv and non-pv versions so that we won't
> penalize the pv code too much for a bit more performance in the non-pv code.
> Doing it your way will add a lot of function call and register
> saving/restoring to the pv code.
If people care about performance they should not be using virt crap :-)
I only really care about bare metal.
--
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