[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150914141012.GV18489@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:10:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Queue node adaptive spinning
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:37:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> In an overcommitted guest where some vCPUs have to be halted to make
> forward progress in other areas, it is highly likely that a vCPU later
> in the spinlock queue will be spinning while the ones earlier in the
> queue would have been halted. The spinning in the later vCPUs is then
> just a waste of precious CPU cycles because they are not going to
> get the lock soon as the earlier ones have to be woken up and take
> their turn to get the lock.
>
> This patch implements an adaptive spinning mechanism where the vCPU
> will call pv_wait() if the following conditions are true:
>
> 1) the vCPU has not been halted before;
> 2) the previous vCPU is not running.
Why 1? For the mutex adaptive stuff we only care about the lock holder
running, right?
--
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