Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1183991

Re: [PATCH 6/7] locking/qspinlock: A fairer queued unfair lock

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 02:47:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 04:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 04:36:57PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>For a virtual guest with the qspinlock patch, a simple unfair byte lock
> >>will be used if PV spinlock is not configured in or the hypervisor
> >>isn't either KVM or Xen.
> >Why do we care about this case enough to add over 300 lines of code?
> 
> From my testing, I found the queued unfair lock to be superior to both the
> byte lock or the PV qspinlock when the VM is overcommitted. My current
> opinion is to use PV qspinlock for VMs that are not likely to run into the
> overcommited problem. For other VMs that are overcommitted, it will be
> better to use the queued unfair lock. However, this is a choice that the
> system administrators have to made. That is also the reason why I sent out
> another patch to add a KVM command line option to disable PV spinlock like
> what Xen already has. In this way, depending on how the kernel is booted, we
> can choose either PV qspinlock or queued unfair lock.

No, we're not going to add another 300 line lock implementation and a
knob.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 6/7] locking/qspinlock: A fairer queued unfair lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-12 10:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 6/7] locking/qspinlock: A fairer queued unfair lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-14 22:50 +0200

csiph-web