[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CF929E9.6000603@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:33:29 -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 12:29 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:09:01PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I don't see how that is going to help get the lock
>> released, when the VCPU holding the lock is on another
>> CPU.
>
> Even the directed yield() is not guaranteed to get the lock released, given its
> shooting in the dark?
True, that's a fair point.
> Anyway, the intention of yield() proposed was not to get lock released
> immediately (which will happen eventually), but rather to avoid inefficiency
> associated with (long) spinning and at the same time make sure we are not
> leaking our bandwidth to other guests because of a naive yield ..
A KVM guest can run on the host alongside short-lived
processes, though. How can we ensure that a VCPU that
donates time gets it back again later, when the task
time was donated to may no longer exist?
--
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