[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CF90E3D.7090103@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:35:25 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kiviti <avi@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
On 12/03/2010 10:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 09:48 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 12/03/2010 09:45 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>>> I'll have to go back and re-read that. Off the top of my head, I see no
>>> way it could matter which container the numbers live in as long as they
>>> keep advancing, and stay in the same runqueue. (hm, task weights would
>>> have to be the same too or scaled. dangerous business, tinkering with
>>> vruntimes)
>>
>> They're not necessarily in the same runqueue, the
>> VCPU that is given time might be on another CPU
>> than the one that was spinning on a lock.
>
> I don't think pumping vruntime cross cfs_rq would be safe, for the
> reason noted (et al). No competition means vruntime is meaningless.
> Donating just advances a clock that nobody's looking at.
Do you have suggestions on what I should do to make
this yield_to functionality work?
I'm willing to implement pretty much anything the
scheduler people will be happy with :)
--
All rights reversed
--
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