WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls t

To: Raghavendra K T <raghukt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock
From: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:17:15 +0200
Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, KVM <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Suzuki Poulose <suzuki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ryan Harper <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:38:53 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4EA85A9D.5060203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20111023190307.16364.35381.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111023190558.16364.2136.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA53A7D.300@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111024122734.GA10634@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA56385.9040302@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111024135032.GB10634@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA6FEC2.1060209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4EA7E21B.8020805@xxxxxxxxxx> <4EA85A9D.5060203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1
On 10/26/2011 09:08 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> CCing Ryan also
>>>
>>> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
>>> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
>>
>> Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
>>
> Basically I was curious whether we can do more better with your
> directed yield discussions in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/2/106 .
>
> I felt we can get little more improvement with doing directed yield to
> lock-holder in case of LHP than sleeping. But I may be wrong.
>
> So wanted to get the feedback, on whether I am thinking in right
> direction.

i guess donating some time to the lock holder could help, but not by
much. The problem with non-pv spinlocks is that you can't just sleep,
since no one will wake you up, so you have to actively boost the lock
holder.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>