On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb. > Good idea. > > > Ingo, Gleb, > > > > > > From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are > > > pro-pvspinlock. > > > Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable > > > candidate?. > > > > > I need to spend more time reviewing it :) The problem with PV interfaces > > is that they are easy to add but hard to get rid of if better solution > > (HW or otherwise) appears. > > How so? Just make sure the registration for the PV interface is optional; that > is, allow it to fail. A guest that fails the PV setup will either have to try > another PV interface or fall back to 'native'. > We have to carry PV around for live migration purposes. PV interface cannot disappear under a running guest. > > > I agree that Jiannan's Preemptable Lock idea is promising and we could > > > evaluate that approach, and make the best one get into kernel and also > > > will carry on discussion with Jiannan to improve that patch. > > That would be great. The work is stalled from what I can tell. > > I absolutely hated that stuff because it wrecked the native code. Yes, the idea was to hide it from native code behind PV hooks. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
