[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46936AF2.9010400@qumranet.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:18:10 +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:
>
>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>> I don't get this. If we add a couple of members to task_struct, it
>> can't be reused. The values will be the same across all tasks, but
>> the memory will be gone (including tasks which aren't virtual
>> machines).
>>
>
> i mean, the function pointer is set by KVM, but it could be set to a
> different value by other hypervisors.
>
> but ... no strong feelings either way, your patch is certainly fine.
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>
> Ingo
>
How do you feel about some variant of this going into 2.6.23-rc1? I
initially thought of this as a 2.6.24 thing, but as it now looks solid,
maybe we can hurry things along.
If Shaohua ports his spinlock->mutex convertion to the sched branch, we
get some real benefits:
- reduced latencies for desktop users
- less kvm patches to carry in -rt (maybe none?)
--
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