[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v15 16/16] unfair qspinlock: a queue based unfair lock
- To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>
- From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:01:46 +0200
- Cc: linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Daniel J Blueman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@xxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@xxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:02:04 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
> will be used if PV spinlock is not configured in or the hypervisor
> isn't either KVM or Xen. The byte lock works fine with small guest
> of just a few vCPUs. On a much larger guest, however, byte lock can
> have serious performance problem.
Who cares?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
