From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755730Ab1ATOel (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:34:41 -0500
Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:40002 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755591Ab1ATOeh (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:34:37 -0500
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:04:30 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
        Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linux Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, suzuki@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kvm hypervisor : Add hypercalls to support
 pv-ticketlock
Message-ID: <20110120143430.GA17815@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
 <20110119164432.GA30669@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20110119171239.GB726@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1295457672.28776.144.camel@laptop>
 <4D373340.60608@goop.org>
 <20110120115958.GB11177@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1295530906.28776.171.camel@laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1295530906.28776.171.camel@laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:41:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 17:29 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > 
> > If we had a yield-to [1] sort of interface _and_ information on which vcpu
> > owns a lock, then lock-spinners can yield-to the owning vcpu, 
> 
> and then I'd nak it for being stupid ;-)
> 
> really, yield*() is retarded, never even consider using it. If you've
> got the actual owner you can do full blown PI, which is tons better than
> a 'do-something-random' call.

Yes definitely that would be much better than yield-to.

> The only reason the whole non-virt pause loop filtering muck uses it is
> because it really doesn't know anything, and do-something is pretty much
> all it can do. Its a broken interface.

- vatsa