[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <506801D3.6040305@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:24:51 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenarios
in PLE handler
On 09/28/2012 01:40 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> IIRC, with defer preemption :
>> >> we will have hook in spinlock/unlock path to measure depth of lock held,
>> >> and shared with host scheduler (may be via MSRs now).
>> >> Host scheduler 'prefers' not to preempt lock holding vcpu. (or rather
>> >> give say one chance.
>> >
>> > A downside is that we have to do that even when undercommitted.
>
> Hopefully vcpu preemption is very rare when undercommitted, so it should
> not happen much at all.
As soon as you're preempted, you're effectively overcommitted (even if
the system as a whole is undercommitted). What I meant was that you
need to communicate your lock state to the host, and with fine-grained
locking this can happen a lot. It may be as simple as an
increment/decrement instruction though.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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