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. > > 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'. > > 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. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
