On 10/26/2011 09:08 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > 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. i guess donating some time to the lock holder could help, but not by much. The problem with non-pv spinlocks is that you can't just sleep, since no one will wake you up, so you have to actively boost the lock holder. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
