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

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
patch-set.

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html