[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D4EDBD.3050900@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:54:21 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de,
pmullaney@...ell.com, pmorreale@...ell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 06:57:38PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> What if the guest sends N packets, then does some expensive computation
>> (say the guest scheduler switches from the benchmark process to
>> evolution). So now we have the marker set at packet N, but the host
>> will not see it until the guest timeslice is up?
>>
>
> Well that's fine. The guest will use up the remainder of its
> timeslice. After all we only have one core/hyperthread here so
> this is no different than if the packets were held up higher up
> in the guest kernel and the guest decided to do some computation.
>
>
3ms latency for ping?
(ping will always be scheduled immediately when the reply arrives if I
understand cfs, so guest load won't delay it)
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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