[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101211135727.GU3158@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:27:27 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, 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 0/3] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting
* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> [2010-12-11 09:31:24]:
> On 12/10/2010 07:03 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >>
> >> Scheduler people, please flame me with anything I may have done
> >> wrong, so I can do it right for a next version :)
> >>
> >
> >This is a good problem statement, there are other things to consider
> >as well
> >
> >1. If a hard limit feature is enabled underneath, donating the
> >timeslice would probably not make too much sense in that case
>
> What's the alternative?
>
> Consider a two vcpu guest with a 50% hard cap. Suppose the workload
> involves ping-ponging within the guest. If the scheduler decides to
> schedule the vcpus without any overlap, then the throughput will be
> dictated by the time slice. If we allow donation, throughput is
> limited by context switch latency.
>
If the vpcu holding the lock runs more and capped, the timeslice
transfer is a heuristic that will not help.
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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