[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CF9242D.4090007@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:09:01 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, 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 11:20 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:35:25AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Do you have suggestions on what I should do to make
>> this yield_to functionality work?
>
> Keeping in mind the complications of yield_to, I had suggested we do something
> suggested below:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=kvm&m=129122645006996&w=2
>
> Essentially yield to other tasks on your own runqueue and when you get to run
> again, try reclaiming what you gave up earlier (with a cap on how much one can
> feedback this relinquished time). It can be accomplished via a special form of
> yield(), available only to in-kernel users, kvm in this case.
I don't see how that is going to help get the lock
released, when the VCPU holding the lock is on another
CPU.
--
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