[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:09:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
boqun.feng@...il.com, will.deacon@....com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 11:42:15AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I suspect you want something like so; except this has holes in.
>
> We clear KVM_ST_PAD_PREEMPT before disabling preemption and we set it
> after enabling it, this means that if we get preempted in between, the
> vcpu is reported as running even though it very much is not.
>
> Fixing that requires much larger surgery.
Note that this same hole is already a 'problem' for steal time
accounting. The thread can accrue further delays (iow steal time) after
we've called record_steal_time(). These delays will go unaccounted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists