[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4690E973.7000606@qumranet.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:41:07 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
shaohua.li@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] kvm-scheduler integration
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_KVM
>> +static __read_mostly struct sched_kvm_hooks kvm_hooks;
>> +#endif
>>
>
> please just add a current->put_vcpu() function pointer instead of this
> hooks thing.
>
>
Won't that increase task_struct (16 bytes on 64-bit) unnecessarily? The
function pointers are common to all virtual machines.
>> static inline void prepare_task_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next)
>> {
>> + unload_kvm_vcpu(current);
>> prepare_lock_switch(rq, next);
>> prepare_arch_switch(next);
>> }
>> @@ -1860,6 +1912,7 @@ static inline void finish_task_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
>> prev_state = prev->state;
>> finish_arch_switch(prev);
>> finish_lock_switch(rq, prev);
>> + reload_kvm_vcpu(current);
>>
>
> ok, this looks certainly cheap enough from a scheduler POV, and it
> cleans up the whole KVM/scheduling interaction quite nicely. (I'd not
> bother with tweaking the migration logic, there's enough incentive for
> the scheduler to keep tasks from migrating unnecessarily.)
>
Okay.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists