[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55197D3B.4020701@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:43:39 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, paolo.bonzini@...il.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
riel@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
oleg@...hat.com, scott.norton@...com, doug.hatch@...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,
luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] qspinlock stuff -v15
On 03/30/2015 12:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:25:12PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> I did it differently in my PV portion of the qspinlock patch. Instead of
>> just waking up the CPU, the new lock holder will check if the new queue head
>> has been halted. If so, it will set the slowpath flag for the halted queue
>> head in the lock so as to wake it up at unlock time. This should eliminate
>> your concern of dong twice as many VMEXIT in an overcommitted scenario.
> We can still do that on top of all this right? As you might have
> realized I'm a fan of gradual complexity :-)
Of course. I am just saying that the concern can be addressed with some
additional code change.
-Longman
--
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