[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1183937563.6005.365.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:32:43 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] kvm-scheduler integration
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 15:48 +0200, 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.
>
> well, this function pointer could then be reused by other virtual
> machines as well, couldnt it? If the task struct overhead is a problem
> (it really isnt, and it's dependent on CONFIG_KVM) then we could switch
> it around to a notifier-alike mechanism.
OK, this patch is *ugly*. Not that there's anything wrong with a patch
which says "I'm going to preempt you", but making it kvm-specific is
ugly. ISTR times past where I wanted such a hook, although none spring
immediately into my pre-coffee brain.
I think a "struct preempt_ops *" and a "void *preempt_ops_data" inside
every task struct is a better idea. Call the config option
PREEMPT_SCHED_HOOKS and now there's nothing kvm-specific about it...
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
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