[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348501929.11847.81.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:52:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] kvm: Be courteous to other VMs in overcommitted
scenario in PLE handler
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:43 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Wouldn't this correspond to the scheduler interrupt firing and causing a
> reschedule? I thought the timer was programmed for exactly the point in
> time that CFS considers the right time for a switch. But I'm basing
> this on my mental model of CFS, not CFS itself.
No, we tried this for hrtimer kernels for a while, but programming
hrtimers the whole time (every actual task-switch) turns out to be far
too expensive. So we're back to HZ ticks and 'polling' the preemption
state.
Even if we remove all the hrtimer infrastructure overhead (can do with a
few hacks) setting the hardware requires going out to the LAPIC, which
is stupid slow.
Some hardware actually has fast/reliable/usable timers, sadly none of it
is popular.
--
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