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
V
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. (maint
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 th
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 exc
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 unde
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 oth
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 idea,
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 to
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 ;-) -- not
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 perspecti
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, Gleb
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, Vino
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 ma
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
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 02:15:2
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 06/25/2013
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 w
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 The
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, Raghavendr
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 replac
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 s
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
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:
- Cha
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 e
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 09
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 questio
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 Jiann
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 s
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 without
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 co
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 "P
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 t
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 complimentar
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 P
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 P
44 matches
Mail list logo
