Re: [PATCH RFC V9 0/19] Paravirtualized ticket spinlocks

[Raghavendra K T]

On 07/11/2013 04:26 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:23:58PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 07/11/2013 03:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:40:38PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > > > > > > Gleb,
> > > > > > > > Can you elaborate little more on what you have in mind regarding per
> > > > > > > > VM ple_window. (maintaining part of it as a per vm variable is clear
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >   me), but is it that we have to load that every time of guest entry?
> > > > > > > Only when it changes, shouldn't be to often no?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok. Thinking how to do. read the register and writeback if there need
> > > > > > to be a change during guest entry?
> > > > > Why not do it like in the patch you've linked? When value changes write it
> > > > > to VMCS of the current vcpu.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. can be done. So the running vcpu's ple_window gets updated only
> > > > after next pl-exit. right?
> > > I am not sure what you mean. You cannot change vcpu's ple_window while
> > > vcpu is in a guest mode.
> >
> > I agree with that. Both of us are on the same page.
> >   What I meant is,
> > suppose the per VM ple_window changes when a vcpu x of that VM  was running,
> > it will get its ple_window updated during next run.
> Ah, I think "per VM" is what confuses me. Why do you want to have "per
> VM" ple_windows and not "per vcpu" one? With per vcpu one ple_windows
> cannot change while vcpu is running.

Okay. Got that. My initial feeling was vcpu does not "feel" the global
load. But I think that should be of no problem. instead we will not need
atomic operations to update ple_window, which is better.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/