[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090511141503.GC6175@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:15:03 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][KVM][retry 1] Add support for Pause Filtering to AMD
SVM
* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
>> +static int pause_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm, struct kvm_run
>> *kvm_run)
>> +{
>> + /* Simple yield */
>> + vcpu_put(&svm->vcpu);
>> + schedule();
>> + vcpu_load(&svm->vcpu);
>> + return 1;
>> +
>
> Ingo, will this do anything under CFS, or will CFS note that
> nothing has changed in the accounting and reschedule us
> immediately?
The scheduler will yield to another task only if the current task
has become ineligible. I.e schedule() is largely a NOP on
TASK_RUNNING tasks (i.e. here).
I.e. this is a somewhat poor solution as far as scheduling goes. But
i'm wondering what the CPU side does. Can REP-NOP really take
thousands of cycles? If yes, under what circumstances?
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