On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 07:41:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com [2012-01-16 12:14:27]:
One option is to make the kick hypercall available only when
yield_on_hlt=1?
It's not a good idea to tie various options together. Features should
be orthogonal.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:56:46PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Extends Linux guest running on KVM hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks.
During smp_boot_cpus paravirtualied KVM guest detects if the hypervisor has
required feature (KVM_FEATURE_PVLOCK_KICK) to support pv-ticketlocks. If so,
* Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 09:02:11]:
+/* Kick vcpu waiting on @lock-head to reach value @ticket */
+static void kvm_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t ticket)
+{
+ int cpu;
+ int apicid;
+
+ add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW, 1);
+
+
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 11:14:13]:
The problem case I was thinking of was when guest VCPU would have issued
HLT with interrupts disabled. I guess one option is to inject an NMI,
and have the guest kernel NMI handler recognize this and make
adjustments such that the vcpu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:56:50PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 11:14:13]:
The problem case I was thinking of was when guest VCPU would have issued
HLT with interrupts disabled. I guess one option is to inject an NMI,
and have the guest
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 14:51:26]:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:56:50PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 11:14:13]:
The problem case I was thinking of was when guest VCPU would have issued
HLT with interrupts disabled. I
On 01/17/2012 06:21 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:56:50PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Gleb Natapovg...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 11:14:13]:
The problem case I was thinking of was when guest VCPU would have issued
HLT with interrupts disabled. I guess one option is to
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:41:03PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 14:51:26]:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:56:50PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 11:14:13]:
The problem case I was thinking of
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 15:20:51]:
Having the hypercall makes the intent of vcpu (to sleep on a kick) clear to
hypervisor vs assuming that because of a trapped HLT instruction (which
will anyway won't work when yield_on_hlt=0).
The purpose of yield_on_hlt=0 is to
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 07:58:18PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 15:20:51]:
Having the hypercall makes the intent of vcpu (to sleep on a kick) clear
to
hypervisor vs assuming that because of a trapped HLT instruction (which
will anyway
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:32:33PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 07:58:18PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 15:20:51]:
Having the hypercall makes the intent of vcpu (to sleep on a kick)
clear to
hypervisor vs
On 01/17/2012 12:12 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 19:38, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/16/2012 07:53 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 15:20, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Alexander Grafag...@suse.de [2012-01-16 04:57:45]:
Speaking of which - have you benchmarked
On 17.01.2012, at 18:27, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/17/2012 12:12 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 19:38, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/16/2012 07:53 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 15:20, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Alexander Grafag...@suse.de [2012-01-16
On 01/17/2012 11:09 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 17.01.2012, at 18:27, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/17/2012 12:12 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 19:38, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 01/16/2012 07:53 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.01.2012, at 15:20, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On 01/17/2012 04:32 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:56:46PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Extends Linux guest running on KVM hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index c7b05fc..4d7a950 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
On 01/17/2012 10:33 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
* Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com [2012-01-17 09:02:11]:
+/* Kick vcpu waiting on @lock-head to reach value @ticket */
+static void kvm_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t ticket)
+{
+ int cpu;
+ int apicid;
+
+
On 01/18/2012 03:27 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 01/17/2012 10:36 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
It was a quick test. two iteration of kernbench (=6runs) and had
ensured cache is cleared.
echo 1 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
ccache -C. Yes may be I can run test as you mentioned..
echo 3
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:19:30 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:12:17PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:02:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
Look, we have a race currently. Let us not tie a bug fix to a huge
18 matches
Mail list logo
