On 01/20/2011 03:42 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:53:52AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> The reason for wanting this should be clear I guess, it allows PI.
>> Well, if we can expand the spinlock to include an owner, then all this
>> becomes moot...
> How so? Having an owner will not eliminate the need for pv-ticketlocks
> afaict. We still need a mechanism to reduce latency in scheduling the next
> thread-in-waiting, which is achieved by your patches.
No, sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant that going to the effort
of not increasing the lock size to record "in slowpath" state.
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
