Avi Kivity wrote:
quoted text
> On 01/04/2011 04:18 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>   
>>
>> So should I resend the patch with the ple_gap default
>> changed to 128, or are you willing to ack the current
>> patch?
>>
>>     
>
> I think 128 is safer given than 41 was too low.  We have to take into 
> account newer cpus and slower spin loops.  If the spin loop does a cache 
> ping-pong (which would be a bad, bad possible, implementation), even 128 
> might be too low.
>   

Agree with Avi. Let us use 128 at this point.
Thanks,
edwin
--
unsubscribe notice
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/