[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120925232122.e6fabbc5c472148aeec70234@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:21:22 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...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 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case in PLE
handler
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:12:49 +0200
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> It will. The tradeoff is between false-positive costs (undercommit) and
> true positive costs (overcommit). I think undercommit should perform
> well no matter what.
>
> If we utilize preempt notifiers to track overcommit dynamically, then we
> can vary the spin time dynamically. Keep it long initially, as we get
> more preempted vcpus make it shorter.
What will happen if we pin each vcpu thread to some core?
I don't want to see so many vcpu threads moving around without
being pinned at all.
In that case, we don't want to make KVM do any work of searching
a vcpu thread to yield to.
Thanks,
Takuya
--
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