On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > PS: Nikunj had experimented that pv-flush tlb + > > > paravirt-spinlock is a win on PLE where only one of them > > > alone could not prove the benefit. > > > > I'd like to see those numbers, then. > > > > Ingo, please hold on the kvm-specific patches, meanwhile. > > I'll hold off on the whole thing - frankly, we don't want this > kind of Xen-only complexity. If KVM can make use of PLE then Xen > ought to be able to do it as well. > > If both Xen and KVM makes good use of it then that's a different > matter. Aside of that, it's kinda strange that a dude named "Nikunj" is referenced in the argument chain, but I can't find him on the CC list. Thanks, tglx _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
