On 04/09/2015 10:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:16:24AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 04/09/2015 03:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
will
On 04/09/2015 03:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
will be used if PV spinlock is not configured in or the hypervisor
isn't either KVM or Xen. The byte lock works
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
will be used if PV spinlock is not configured in or the hypervisor
isn't either KVM or Xen. The byte lock works fine with small guest
of just a few vCPUs. On a
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:16:24AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 04/09/2015 03:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
will be used if PV spinlock is not configured in
For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
will be used if PV spinlock is not configured in or the hypervisor
isn't either KVM or Xen. The byte lock works fine with small guest
of just a few vCPUs. On a much larger guest, however, byte lock can
have serious performance
