![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: >>I presume the hypervisor switch much incur the same sorts of costs as >>a context switch?> > > In the PPC64 and P4/HT case the spinning on a lock is a bad utilisation of > the execution resources and that's what we're really trying to avoid, not > necessarily cache thrashing from a context switch.> But isn't yielding to the hypervisor and thus causing it to schedule something else basically the same as a context switch? (I don't know anything about POWER). If yes, then shouldn't your lock be a blocking lock anyway? - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||