On 17/05/2018 20:46, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > My understanding of the original patch is that the intention is > to tell the guest that it is very unlikely to be preempted, so it > can choose a more appropriate spinlock implementation. This > description implies that the guest will never be preempted, which > is much stronger guarantee. > > Isn't this new description incompatible with existing usage of > the hint, which might include people who just use vCPU pinning > but no mlock? If you use hugetlbfs and vhost-user you don't really need mlock for the QEMU process, do you? The QEMU process is not doing much in that case and hugetlbfs gives you pinned memory automatically. Paolo -- 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
