On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
CCing Ryan also
So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
Basically I was curious whether we can do more better with your directed
yield discussions in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/2/106 .
I felt we can get little more improvement with doing directed yield to
lock-holder in case of LHP than sleeping. But I may be wrong.
So wanted to get the feedback, on whether I am thinking in right
direction.
--
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
