On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Ingo, > > > > > > > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this > > > > looks good now to you. > > > > > > I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many > > > people left the discussion in disgust? Was it done to drive away as > > > many reviewers as possible? > > > > > > Anyway, see my other reply, the measurement results seem hard to > > > interpret and inconclusive at the moment. > > > > 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? May I suggest an alternate way - perhaps you can put them in a tip/spinlock tree for v3.12 - since both KVM and Xen maintainers have acked and carefully reviewed them? -- 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
