[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
- To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 22:14:43 +0200
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, drjones@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, agraf@xxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, habanero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx, ouyang@xxxxxxxxxxx, avi.kivity@xxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, chegu_vinod@xxxxxx, mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srivatsa.vaddagiri@xxxxxxxxx, attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:15:01 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
to the spinlocks.
This needs to be done at the top level (so the level you're removing)
However I don't like the pv mechanism very much and would
be fine with using an static key hook in the main path
like I do for all the other lock types.
It also uses interrupt ops patching, for that it would
be still needed though.
-Andi
--
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
