[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120706171128.GA8835@amt.cnet>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 14:11:28 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted_vcpu = 0 case
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
> Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
> > serving as reference point to start when we enter.
>
> > Also statistical analysis (below) is showing lbv is not very well
> > distributed with current approach.
>
> You are the second person to spot this bug today (yes, today).
>
> Due to time zones, the first person has not had a chance yet to
> test the patch below, which might fix the issue...
>
> Please let me know how it goes.
>
> ====8<====
>
> If last_boosted_vcpu == 0, then we fall through all test cases and
> may end up with all VCPUs pouncing on vcpu 0. With a large enough
> guest, this can result in enormous runqueue lock contention, which
> can prevent vcpu0 from running, leading to a livelock.
>
> Changing < to <= makes sure we properly handle that case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Applied, thanks.
--
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