[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170904222157.GD17982@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:21:57 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] x86,kvm: Add a kernel parameter to disable PV
spinlock
On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>For testing its trivial to hack your kernel and I don't feel this is
>something an Admin can make reasonable decisions about.
>
>So why? In general less knobs is better.
+1.
Also, note how b8fa70b51aa (xen, pvticketlocks: Add xen_nopvspin parameter
to disable xen pv ticketlocks) has no justification as to why its wanted
in the first place. The only thing I could find was from 15a3eac0784
(xen/spinlock: Document the xen_nopvspin parameter):
"Useful for diagnosing issues and comparing benchmarks in over-commit CPU scenarios."
So I vote for no additional knobs, specially for such core code.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists