Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On 05/08/2012 04:45 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 05/07/2012 06:49 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:46 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  [2012-05-07 19:08:51]:

I 'll get hold of a PLE mc  and come up with the numbers soon. but I
'll expect the improvement around 1-3% as it was in last version.
Deferring preemption (when vcpu is holding lock) may give us better than 1-3%
results on PLE hardware. Something worth trying IMHO.
Is the improvement so low, because PLE is interfering with the patch, or
because PLE already does a good job?

How does PLE help with ticket scheduling on unlock?  I thought it would
just help with the actual spin loops.

Hmm. This strikes something to me. I think I should replace while 1 hog
in with some *real job*  to measure over-commit case. I hope to see
greater improvements because of fairness and scheduling of the

May be all the way I was measuring something equal to 1x case.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux