On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <[email protected]> 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.
Aside of that, it's kinda strange that a dude named "Nikunj" is
referenced in the argument chain, but I can't find him on the CC list.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
