[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348665971.3881.102.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:26:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
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 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenarios
in PLE handler
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 15:20 +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Wouldn't a clean solution be to promote a task's scheduler
> class to the spinner class when we PLE (or come from some special
> syscall
> for userspace spinlocks?)?
Userspace spinlocks are typically employed to avoid syscalls..
> That class would be higher priority than the
> fair class and would schedule in FIFO order, but it would only run its
> tasks for short periods before switching.
Since lock hold times aren't limited, esp. for things like userspace
'spin' locks, you've got a very good denial of service / opportunity for
abuse right there.
--
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