On Mon, 7 May 2012 22:42:30 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > Do not have PLE numbers yet for pvflush and pvspinlock.
I have seen on Non-PLE having pvflush and pvspinlock patches - kernbench, ebizzy, specjbb, hackbench and dbench all of them improved. I am chasing a race currently on pv-flush path, it is causing file-system corruption. I will post these number along with my v2 post. > > > 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. > /me waves my hand Regards Nikunj _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
