On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Juergen Gross wrote:
AFAIK there are no outstanding questions for more than one month now.
I'd appreciate some feedback or accepting these patches.
They are against dead code, which will be gone soon. We switched over
to queued locks.
Thanks,
tglx
AFAIK there are no outstanding questions for more than one month now.
I'd appreciate some feedback or accepting these patches.
Juergen
On 04/30/2015 12:53 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
Paravirtualized spinlocks produce some overhead even if the kernel is
running on bare metal. The main reason are
Ping?
Anything missing from my side?
On 04/30/2015 12:53 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
Paravirtualized spinlocks produce some overhead even if the kernel is
running on bare metal. The main reason are the more complex locking
and unlocking functions. Especially unlocking is no longer just one
On 05/17/2015 07:30 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Juergen Gross jgr...@suse.com wrote:
On 05/05/2015 07:21 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 05/03/2015 10:55 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
I did a small measurement of the pure locking functions on bare metal
without and with my patches.
spin_lock()
* Juergen Gross jgr...@suse.com wrote:
On 05/05/2015 07:21 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 05/03/2015 10:55 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
I did a small measurement of the pure locking functions on bare metal
without and with my patches.
spin_lock() for the first time (lock and code not in
Ping?
On 04/30/2015 12:53 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
Paravirtualized spinlocks produce some overhead even if the kernel is
running on bare metal. The main reason are the more complex locking
and unlocking functions. Especially unlocking is no longer just one
instruction but so complex that it is
On 05/05/2015 07:21 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 05/03/2015 10:55 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
I did a small measurement of the pure locking functions on bare metal
without and with my patches.
spin_lock() for the first time (lock and code not in cache) dropped from
about 600 to 500 cycles.
On 05/03/2015 10:55 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
I did a small measurement of the pure locking functions on bare metal
without and with my patches.
spin_lock() for the first time (lock and code not in cache) dropped from
about 600 to 500 cycles.
spin_unlock() for first time dropped from 145 to
On 04/30/2015 06:39 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 04/30/2015 03:53 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
Paravirtualized spinlocks produce some overhead even if the kernel is
running on bare metal. The main reason are the more complex locking
and unlocking functions. Especially unlocking is no longer
On 04/30/2015 03:53 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
Paravirtualized spinlocks produce some overhead even if the kernel is
running on bare metal. The main reason are the more complex locking
and unlocking functions. Especially unlocking is no longer just one
instruction but so complex that it is no
Paravirtualized spinlocks produce some overhead even if the kernel is
running on bare metal. The main reason are the more complex locking
and unlocking functions. Especially unlocking is no longer just one
instruction but so complex that it is no longer inlined.
This patch series addresses this
11 matches
Mail list logo
