Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:58:29PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
> >>
> >Good idea.
> >
> >>>>Ingo, Gleb,
> >>>>
> >>>> From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are
> >>>>pro-pvspinlock.
> >>>>Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable
> >>>>candidate?.
> >>>>
> >>>I need to spend more time reviewing it :) The problem with PV interfaces
> >>>is that they are easy to add but hard to get rid of if better solution
> >>>(HW or otherwise) appears.
> >>
> >>How so? Just make sure the registration for the PV interface is optional; 
> >>that
> >>is, allow it to fail. A guest that fails the PV setup will either have to 
> >>try
> >>another PV interface or fall back to 'native'.
> >>
> >We have to carry PV around for live migration purposes. PV interface
> >cannot disappear under a running guest.
> >
> 
> IIRC, The only requirement was running state of the vcpu to be retained.
> This was addressed by
> [PATCH RFC V10 13/18] kvm : Fold pv_unhalt flag into GET_MP_STATE
> ioctl to aid migration.
> 
> I would have to know more if I missed something here.
> 
I was not talking about the state that has to be migrated, but
HV<->guest interface that has to be preserved after migration.

--
                        Gleb.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel