Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks
From: Raghavendra K T <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-07 13:53:59
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2012-06-14 · Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks · Raghavendra K T <hidden>
- 2012-05-30 · Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks · Raghavendra K T <hidden>
- 2012-05-16 · Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks · Raghavendra K T <hidden>
- 2012-05-14 · Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks · Raghavendra K T <hidden>
- 2012-05-14 · Re: [PATCH RFC V8 0/17] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks · Raghavendra K T <hidden>
On 05/07/2012 07:19 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 05/07/2012 04:46 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:quoted
* Raghavendra K T[off-list ref] [2012-05-07 19:08:51]:quoted
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?
It is because PLE already does a good job (of not burning cpu). The 1-3% improvement is because, patchset knows atleast who is next to hold lock, which is lacking in PLE.