[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C56DF5D.807@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:08:13 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
npiggin@...e.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org, bharata@...ibm.com,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] Add yield hypercall for KVM guests
On 08/02/2010 01:32 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/26/2010 08:19 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 07/25/2010 11:14 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>> Add KVM hypercall for yielding vcpu timeslice.
>>
>> Can you do a directed yield?
>>
>
> A problem with directed yield is figuring out who to yield to. One
> idea is to look for a random vcpu that is not running and donate some
> runtime to it. In the best case, it's the lock holder and we cause it
> to start running. Middle case it's not the lock holder, but we lose
> enough runtime to stop running, so at least we don't waste cpu. Worst
> case we continue running not having woken the lock holder. Spin
> again, yield again hoping to find the right vcpu.
That can help with lockholder preemption, but on unlock you need to wake
up exactly the right vcpu - the next in the ticket queue - in order to
avoid burning masses of cpu. If each cpu records what lock it is
spinning on and what its ticket is in a percpu variable, then the
unlocker can search for the next person to kick.
J
--
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