[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101214092535.GD14178@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:55:35 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...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>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting
* Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> [2010-12-13 12:02:51]:
> On 12/11/2010 08:57 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> >If the vpcu holding the lock runs more and capped, the timeslice
> >transfer is a heuristic that will not help.
>
> That indicates you really need the cap to be per guest, and
> not per VCPU.
>
Yes, I personally think so too, but I suspect there needs to be a
larger agreement on the semantics. The VCPU semantics in terms of
power apply to each VCPU as opposed to the entire system (per guest).
> Having one VCPU spin on a lock (and achieve nothing), because
> the other one cannot give up the lock due to hitting its CPU
> cap could lead to showstoppingly bad performance.
Yes, that seems right!
--
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