From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932118Ab3HBJzV (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2013 05:55:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51151 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758487Ab3HBJzQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2013 05:55:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:54:06 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Raghavendra K T , mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, jeremy@goop.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, peterz@infradead.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andi@firstfloor.org, attilio.rao@citrix.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, gregkh@suse.de, agraf@suse.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@gmail.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor Message-ID: <20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.com> References: <51EFC1D4.9060800@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130724120647.GG16400@redhat.com> <51EFCA42.5020009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51F0ED31.3040200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130725091509.GA22735@redhat.com> <51F0F202.5090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51F7ED20.80202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130731062440.GK28372@redhat.com> <51FA1087.9080908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130802092539.GB28327@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130802092539.GB28327@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Ingo, > > > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this > > looks good now to you. > > I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many people > left the discussion in disgust? Was it done to drive away as many > reviewers as possible? > > Anyway, see my other reply, the measurement results seem hard to interpret > and inconclusive at the moment. > That result was only for patch 18 of the series, not pvspinlock in general. -- Gleb. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V11 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:54:06 +0300 Message-ID: <20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.com> References: <51EFC1D4.9060800@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130724120647.GG16400@redhat.com> <51EFCA42.5020009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51F0ED31.3040200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130725091509.GA22735@redhat.com> <51F0F202.5090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51F7ED20.80202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130731062440.GK28372@redhat.com> <51FA1087.9080908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130802092539.GB28327@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, andi@firstfloor.org, hpa@zytor.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Raghavendra K T , mingo@redhat.com, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@redhat.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com, attilio.rao@citrix.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130802092539.GB28327@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Ingo, > > > > Do you have any concerns reg this series? please let me know if this > > looks good now to you. > > I'm inclined to NAK it for excessive quotation - who knows how many people > left the discussion in disgust? Was it done to drive away as many > reviewers as possible? > > Anyway, see my other reply, the measurement results seem hard to interpret > and inconclusive at the moment. > That result was only for patch 18 of the series, not pvspinlock in general. -- Gleb.