[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101203140607.GA9800@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 19:36:07 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kiviti <avi@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:03:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> No, because they do receive service (they spend some time spinning
> before being interrupted), so the respective vruntimes will increase, at
> some point they'll pass B0 and it'll get scheduled.
Is that sufficient to ensure that B0 receives its fair share (1/3 cpu in this
case)?
- vatsa
--
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