[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] kvm hypervisor : Add two hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock
- To: Raghavendra K T <raghukt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:34:03 +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>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:53:51 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> 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?
--
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
|
