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

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

dropping stephen becuase of bounce

On 07/10/2013 04:58 PM, 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'.
Forgot to add. Yes currently pvspinlocks are not enabled by default and
also, we have jump_label mechanism to enable it.
[...]


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