On 05/09/17 11:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:52:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Hmm, that might work. Could we somehow nop that call when
>>> !X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR?, that saves native from having to do the call
>>> and would be a win for everyone.
>>
>> So in fact
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:52:06AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Hmm, that might work. Could we somehow nop that call when
> > !X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR?, that saves native from having to do the call
> > and would be a win for everyone.
>
> So in fact we want a "always false" shortcut for bare
On 05/09/17 10:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:14:21AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/09/17 10:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> So the problem with qspinlock is that it will revert to a classic
>
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:14:21AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 10:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> So the problem with qspinlock is that it will revert to a classic
> >>> test-and-set spinlock if you don't do paravirt
On 05/09/17 10:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> So the problem with qspinlock is that it will revert to a classic
>>> test-and-set spinlock if you don't do paravirt but are running a HV.
>>
>> In the Xen case we just use the bare metal
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > So the problem with qspinlock is that it will revert to a classic
> > test-and-set spinlock if you don't do paravirt but are running a HV.
>
> In the Xen case we just use the bare metal settings when xen_nopvspin
> has been
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 08:57:16AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> It may be that the original patch was just to keep consistency between Xen
> and KVM, and also only for testing purposes.
> But we find a case when a customer of ours is running some workloads with
> 1<->1 mapping between physical
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 08:28:10AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 00:21, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >> For testing its trivial to hack your kernel and I don't feel this is
> >> something an Admin can make reasonable decisions about.
> >>
On 05/09/17 00:21, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> For testing its trivial to hack your kernel and I don't feel this is
>> something an Admin can make reasonable decisions about.
>>
>> So why? In general less knobs is better.
>
> +1.
>
> Also, note how
On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
For testing its trivial to hack your kernel and I don't feel this is
something an Admin can make reasonable decisions about.
So why? In general less knobs is better.
+1.
Also, note how b8fa70b51aa (xen, pvticketlocks: Add xen_nopvspin parameter
to
On 09/04/2017 10:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 04:28:36PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> This is just a resend of Waiman Long's patch.
>> I could not find why it was not merged to upstream, so I thought
>> to give it another chance.
>> What follows is what Waiman Long
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 04:28:36PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> This is just a resend of Waiman Long's patch.
> I could not find why it was not merged to upstream, so I thought
> to give it another chance.
> What follows is what Waiman Long wrote.
>
> Xen has an kernel command line argument
This is just a resend of Waiman Long's patch.
I could not find why it was not merged to upstream, so I thought
to give it another chance.
What follows is what Waiman Long wrote.
Xen has an kernel command line argument "xen_nopvspin" to disable
paravirtual spinlocks. This patch adds a similar
13 matches
Mail list logo
