[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CFA3BE7.4050905@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:02:31 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 12/03/2010 04:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 19:40 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 07:36:07PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>> 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)?
>>
>> Hmm perhaps yes, althought at cost of tons of context switches, which would be
>> nice to minimize on?
>
> Don't care, as long as the guys calling yield_to() pay for that time its
> their problem.
Also, the context switches are cheaper than spinning
entire time slices on spinlocks we're not going to get
(because the VCPU holding the lock is not running).
--
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