* Ian Campbell [2012-04-16 17:36:35]:
> > > The current pv-spinlock patches however does not track which vcpu is
> > > spinning at what head of the ticketlock. I suppose we can consider
> > > that optimization in future and see how much benefit it provides (over
> > > plain yield/sleep the way i
On 04/16/2012 09:36 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 16:44 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 09:37:45AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>> * Thomas Gleixner [2012-03-31 00:07:58]:
>>>
I know that Peter is going to go berserk on me, but if we are r
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 16:44 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 09:37:45AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > * Thomas Gleixner [2012-03-31 00:07:58]:
> >
> > > I know that Peter is going to go berserk on me, but if we are running
> > > a paravirt guest then it's simpl
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 23:07 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So if we need to fiddle with the scheduler and frankly that's the only
> way to get a real gain (the numbers, which are achieved by this
> patches, are not that impressive) then the question arises whether we
> should turn the whole thing
On 03/31/2012 12:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
What is the current status of this patchset? I haven't looked at it too
closely because I have been focused on 3.4 up until now...
The real question is whether these heuristics are the correct approach
o
