[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DDE95BDD51FB774B804A9C029E735EE10379BEDA2F@sausexmbp02.amd.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:03:23 -0500
From: "Langsdorf, Mark" <mark.langsdorf@....com>
To: "'Avi Kivity'" <avi@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Prevent immediate process rescheduling
> > Really hate this change though,. doesn't seem right to not
> pick the same
> > task again if its runnable. Bad for cache footprint.
>
> I agree, yielding should be explicitly requested.
>
> Also, on a heavily overcommitted box an undirected yield might take
> quite a long time to find the thread that's holding the lock.
> I think a
> yield_to() will be a lot better:
>
> - we can pick one of the vcpus belonging to the same guest to improve
> the probability that the lock actually get released
Is there a way to find the other vcpus belonging to the
same guest? I poked around at that, but couldn't find
one.
> - we avoid an issue when the other vcpus are on different
> runqueues (in which case the current patch does nothing)
> - we can fix the accounting by donating vruntime from current to the
> yielded-to vcpu
I may need someone to walk me through the vruntime donation
but that's secondary to finding the other vcpus.
-Mark Langsdorf
Operating System Research Center
AMD
--
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