Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/10] Cr4 is valid on some 486s | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:52:51 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 11:46 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> It seems that SMP vs. UP lock / spinlock overhead is relevant even for > future, multi-core CPUs in a virtualization context, as the notion of > hotplug here is based on scheduling constraints of the virtualization > engine, and the kernel can quite readily end up with only one VCPU.
this assumes that you don't just always want to assume and use SMP primitives in a virtualized context. I sort of question that assumption; sure these things have overhead, especially "lock", but if the solution is more complexity and weird things to hide that half-percent or less of performance difference... then do remember that such complexity is not free either. Runtime tricks cost.
- 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/
| |