On 07/11/2013 04:26 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:23:58PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/11/2013 03:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Gleb,
Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:23:58PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 03:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>Gleb,
> >>Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
> >>VM ple_window.
On 07/11/2013 03:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Gleb,
Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
VM ple_window. (maintaining part of it as a per vm variable is clear
to
me), but is it that we have to load
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Gleb,
> Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
> VM ple_window. (maintaining part of it as a per vm variable is clear
> to
> me), but is it that we have to load that every time of
On 07/11/2013 03:18 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 02:43:03PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
[...] trimmed
Yes. you are right. dynamic ple window was an attempt to solve it.
Probelm is, reducing the SPIN_THRESHOLD is resulting in
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 02:43:03PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> [...] trimmed
>
> >>>Yes. you are right. dynamic ple window was an attempt to solve it.
> >>>
> >>>Probelm is, reducing the SPIN_THRESHOLD is resulting in excess halt
> >>>exits in
On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
[...] trimmed
Yes. you are right. dynamic ple window was an attempt to solve it.
Probelm is, reducing the SPIN_THRESHOLD is resulting in excess halt
exits in under-commits and increasing ple_window may be sometimes
counter productive as it affects
On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
[...] trimmed
Yes. you are right. dynamic ple window was an attempt to solve it.
Probelm is, reducing the SPIN_THRESHOLD is resulting in excess halt
exits in under-commits and increasing ple_window may be sometimes
counter productive as it affects
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 02:43:03PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
[...] trimmed
Yes. you are right. dynamic ple window was an attempt to solve it.
Probelm is, reducing the SPIN_THRESHOLD is resulting in excess halt
exits in under-commits and
On 07/11/2013 03:18 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 02:43:03PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
[...] trimmed
Yes. you are right. dynamic ple window was an attempt to solve it.
Probelm is, reducing the SPIN_THRESHOLD is resulting in
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Gleb,
Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
VM ple_window. (maintaining part of it as a per vm variable is clear
to
me), but is it that we have to load that every time of guest entry?
Only
On 07/11/2013 03:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Gleb,
Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
VM ple_window. (maintaining part of it as a per vm variable is clear
to
me), but is it that we have to load
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:23:58PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/11/2013 03:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Gleb,
Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
VM ple_window. (maintaining part of it as a
On 07/11/2013 04:26 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:23:58PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/11/2013 03:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Gleb,
Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
Gleb Natapov wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:03:15AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:47:17PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:03:15AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:47:17PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's an
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:47:17PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >
> > Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
> >
> Good idea.
>
> >
On 07/10/2013 05:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:54:12PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Ingo, Gleb,
From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are
pro-pvspinlock.
Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable
candidate?.
I need
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:54:12PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>Ingo, Gleb,
> >>
> >> From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are
> >>pro-pvspinlock.
> >>Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable
> >>candidate?.
> >>
> >I need to spend more time
dropping stephen becuase of bounce
On 07/10/2013 04:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-)
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:58:29PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>
> >>Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) --
On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
Good idea.
Ingo, Gleb,
From the results
On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:41:30PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
>
Good idea.
> > > Ingo, Gleb,
> > >
> > > From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
> > Ingo, Gleb,
> >
> > From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are
> > pro-pvspinlock.
> > Could you please help me to know what will
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:41:30PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 11:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>>On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:41:30PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
Ingo, Gleb,
From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are
pro-pvspinlock.
Could you please help me to know what will make it a
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
Good idea.
Ingo, Gleb,
From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test
On 07/10/2013 04:03 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:41:30PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM,
On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
Good idea.
Ingo, Gleb,
From the results
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:58:29PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only
dropping stephen becuase of bounce
On 07/10/2013 04:58 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-)
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:54:12PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Ingo, Gleb,
From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are
pro-pvspinlock.
Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable
candidate?.
I need to spend more time reviewing it :) The
On 07/10/2013 05:11 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:54:12PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Ingo, Gleb,
From the results perspective, Andrew Theurer, Vinod's test results are
pro-pvspinlock.
Could you please help me to know what will make it a mergeable
candidate?.
I need
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:47:17PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the damn email ;-) -- not only directed at gleb.
Good idea.
Ingo, Gleb,
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:03:15AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:47:17PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Here's an idea, trim the
Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:03:15AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:47:17PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov
On 06/26/2013 11:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at
On 06/26/2013 11:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at
On 06/26/2013 09:26 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 15:52 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02
On 06/26/2013 09:26 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 15:52 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02
On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>>On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 15:52 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> > > >On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T
On 06/26/2013 08:09 PM, Chegu Vinod wrote:
On 6/26/2013 6:40 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:52:40PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> > > >On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530,
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> > >On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > >>This series replaces the existing paravirtualized
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> >On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> >>with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism.
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
-
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
-
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:52:40PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T
On 06/26/2013 08:09 PM, Chegu Vinod wrote:
On 6/26/2013 6:40 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew
On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 15:52 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/25/2013 08:20 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Sun,
On 06/26/2013 09:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 07:10:21PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/26/2013 06:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:15:26PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
> implementation for both Xen and KVM.
>
> Changes in V9:
> - Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 00:51 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess
Raghu, thanks for you input. I'm more than glad to work together with
you to make this idea work better.
-Jiannan
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Raghavendra K T
wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 11:51 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/02/2013
On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 11:45 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 11:51 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>
> High level
On 06/03/2013 11:51 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for "Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock" patch series by
Raghu, thanks for you input. I'm more than glad to work together with
you to make this idea work better.
-Jiannan
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Raghavendra K T
raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 06/03/2013 11:51 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T
On 06/03/2013 11:51 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock patch
On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 11:45 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/03/2013 11:51 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
High level question
On 06/02/2013 01:44 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
to the spinlocks.
This needs to be done at the top level (so the level you're removing)
However I don't like the pv mechanism very much and would
be fine with using an static key hook in the
On 06/02/2013 01:44 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
to the spinlocks.
This needs to be done at the top level (so the level you're removing)
However I don't like the pv mechanism very much and would
be fine with using an static key hook in the
On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for "Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock" patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
ticketing
On 06/03/2013 07:10 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for "Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock" patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
ticketing spinlocks in overcommit scenarios problem
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> High level question here. We have a big hope for "Preemptable Ticket
> Spinlock" patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
> ticketing spinlocks in overcommit scenarios problem without need for PV.
> So how this patch series
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 12:51:25AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
> implementation for both Xen and KVM.
>
High level question here. We have a big hope for
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 12:51:25AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
High level question here. We have a big hope for
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
ticketing spinlocks in overcommit scenarios problem without need for PV.
So how this patch
On 06/02/2013 09:50 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com wrote:
High level question here. We have a big hope for Preemptable Ticket
Spinlock patch series by Jiannan Ouyang to solve most, if not all,
ticketing spinlocks in overcommit scenarios
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 01:28:00PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 06/01/2013 01:14 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
> > to the spinlocks.
>
> Does lock elision still use the ticketlock algorithm/structure, or are
> they different? If
On 06/01/2013 01:14 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
> to the spinlocks.
Does lock elision still use the ticketlock algorithm/structure, or are
they different? If they're still basically ticketlocks, then it seems
to me that they're
FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
to the spinlocks.
This needs to be done at the top level (so the level you're removing)
However I don't like the pv mechanism very much and would
be fine with using an static key hook in the main path
like I do for all the other lock
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess halt exits that are
causing undercommit degradation (after
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess halt exits that are
causing undercommit degradation (after
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess halt exits that are
causing undercommit degradation (after
This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism. The series provides
implementation for both Xen and KVM.
Changes in V9:
- Changed spin_threshold to 32k to avoid excess halt exits that are
causing undercommit degradation (after
FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
to the spinlocks.
This needs to be done at the top level (so the level you're removing)
However I don't like the pv mechanism very much and would
be fine with using an static key hook in the main path
like I do for all the other lock
On 06/01/2013 01:14 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
to the spinlocks.
Does lock elision still use the ticketlock algorithm/structure, or are
they different? If they're still basically ticketlocks, then it seems
to me that they're complimentary
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 01:28:00PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 06/01/2013 01:14 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW I use the paravirt spinlock ops for adding lock elision
to the spinlocks.
Does lock elision still use the ticketlock algorithm/structure, or are
they different? If they're
88 matches
Mail list logo
