[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090118083744.GB21940@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:37:44 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes
* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 04:43 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12465 just popped up - another
>>>> scheduler regression. It has been bisected.
>>>>
>>> Seems pretty clear. I'd suggest reverting it.
>>>
>>
>> We can revert it (and will revert it if no solution is found), but i'd
>> also like to understand why it happens, because that kind of regression
>> from this change is unexpected - we might be hiding some bug that could
>> pop up under less debuggable circumstances, so we need to understand it
>> while we have a chance.
>>
>> Below is the commit in question. Avi, any ideas what makes KVM special
>> here? Perhaps its use of "preempt notifiers" is causing a problem
>> somehow?
>>
>
> preempt notifiers use should cause additional context switch costs of a
> few thousand cycles and possible an IPI (if a vcpu was migrated). So
> I'd suspect scheduling latency here.
>
> Is it possible to trace this (the time between a wake up and actual
> scheduling of a task)?
Can you reproduce those latencies? We didnt get similar reports from
elsewhere so there seems to be a KVM angle.
Ingo
--
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