On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 12:04 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> 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. > > > > That only works if the guest uses monitor/mwait. Not all of the guests > are under our control. I don't know whether Windows uses > monitor/mwait. Further, we don't have timed exits on mwait like we do > with pause. Ugh, you really care about crap like windows? > I've also heard that monitor/mwait are very slow and only usable on idle > loop stuff. Yeah, current implementations suck, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. > > Once we go change silicon, you might as well do it right. > > > > None of the major x86 vendors are under my control. I thought this patch came from AMD, who changed their silicon so 'solve' one of these virt problems. /me goes hide again, and pretend all of virt doesn't exist :-) Think happy thoughts. -- 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
