On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:49 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> That said, I still thoroughly dislike this whole approach. > >>> > >>> > >> Can you explain why? We have a thread that has detected that it's > >> spinning. Keeping on spinning is a waste of cpu time. Why not let > >> something else use the cpu? > >> > > > > Because its a polling interface. I much prefer it if we were to get a > > wakeup notification when the vcpu holding the lock releases it. > > > > It's a fully virtualized guest. There's no way to get this without > patching the guest kernel. Yes there is.. virtualized monitor-wait stuff coupled with a monitor-wait based spinlock implementation. Once we go change silicon, you might as well do it right. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
