From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754141Ab3HEJqM (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:46:12 -0400 Received: from mail-ea0-f170.google.com ([209.85.215.170]:40640 "EHLO mail-ea0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345Ab3HEJqJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:46:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:46:03 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gleb Natapov 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: <20130805094603.GA29303@gmail.com> References: <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> <20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130802095406.GB30072@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Gleb Natapov wrote: > 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. Okay - I've re-read the performance numbers and they are impressive, so no objections from me. The x86 impact seems to be a straightforward API change, with most of the changes on the virtualization side. So: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar I guess you'd want to carry this in the KVM tree or so - maybe in a separate branch because it changes Xen as well? Thanks, Ingo