[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor
- To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:12:08 +0530
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxx, Gleb Natapov <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, 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
- Delivery-date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:38:45 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
That result was only for patch 18 of the series, not pvspinlock in
general.
Okay - I've re-read the performance numbers and they are impressive, so no
objections from me.
The x86 impact seems to be a straightforward API change, with most of the
changes on the virtualization side. So:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a
separate branch because it changes Xen as well?
Thank you Ingo for taking a relook.
Gleb, Please let me know if you want me to resend the first 17 patches
with acked-bys. i.e excluding the 18th patch.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
