Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:25:27 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
        Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@citrix.com>,
        Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
        Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
Message-ID: <20120507172527.GA5357@gmail.com>
References: <4FA7BABA.4040700@redhat.com>
 <4FA7CC05.50808@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4FA7CCA2.4030408@redhat.com>
 <4FA7D06B.60005@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20120507134611.GB5533@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4FA7D2E5.1020607@redhat.com>
 <4FA7D3F7.9080005@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4FA7D50D.1020209@redhat.com>
 <4FA7E06E.20304@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4FA7E1C8.7010509@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4FA7E1C8.7010509@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 800
Lines: 26


* Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> 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.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/