[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CFB8842.4010003@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:40:34 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] kvm: keep track of which task is running a KVM
vcpu
On 12/03/2010 04:50 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 08:18 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
>> * Rik van Riel (riel@...hat.com) wrote:
>>> Keep track of which task is running a KVM vcpu. This helps us
>>> figure out later what task to wake up if we want to boost a
>>> vcpu that got preempted.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately there are no guarantees that the same task
>>> always keeps the same vcpu, so we can only track the task
>>> across a single "run" of the vcpu.
>>
>> So shouldn't it confine to KVM_RUN? The other vcpu_load callers aren't
>> always a vcpu in a useful runnable state.
>
> Yeah, probably. If you want I can move the setting of
> vcpu->task to kvm_vcpu_ioctl.
>
No need, it's not like something bad will happen.
What I'd really like to see is a soft binding between a vcpu and its
thread, so directed yield works even if we're in qemu while we were
scheduled out. In fact it's not an unlikely pattern:
spin_lock(&lock)
...
writel(some_port_handled_by_qemu)
...
spin_unlock(&lock)
but that can wait.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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