[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
- To: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:28:33 +0530
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, drjones@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srivatsa.vaddagiri@xxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxx, 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, attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:54:57 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 06/02/2013 01:44 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
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.
Hi Andi, IIUC, you are okay with the current approach overall right?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
