Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/04/2011 04:18 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
So should I resend the patch with the ple_gap default
changed to 128, or are you willing to ack the current
patch?
I think 128 is safer given than 41 was too low. We have to take into
account newer cpus and slower spin loops. If the spin loop does a cache
ping-pong (which would be a bad, bad possible, implementation), even 128
might be too low.
Agree with Avi. Let us use 128 at this point.
Thanks,
edwin
--
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
