[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D010CD4.4020400@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:07:32 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: 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 3/3] kvm: use yield_to instead of sleep in kvm_vcpu_on_spin
On 12/09/2010 05:28 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 12:38 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>>> - /* Sleep for 100 us, and hope lock-holder got scheduled */
>>>> - expires = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get(), 100000UL);
>>>> - schedule_hrtimeout(&expires, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
>>>> + if (first_round&& last_boosted_vcpu == kvm->last_boosted_vcpu) {
>>>> + /* We have not found anyone yet. */
>>>> + first_round = 0;
>>>> + goto again;
>>>
>>> Need to guarantee termination.
>>
>> We do that by setting first_round to 0 :)
>>
>> We at most walk N+1 VCPUs in a VM with N VCPUs, with
>> this patch.
>>
>
> Right. May be clearer by using a for () loop instead of the goto.
And open coding kvm_for_each_vcpu ?
Somehow I suspect that won't add to clarity...
--
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