[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50911C7D.5080307@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:11:33 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: 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>,
"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>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 RFC 2/3] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for
potential undercommit case
On 10/31/2012 06:08 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 04:07 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Also we do not update last boosted vcpu in failure cases.
>>
>> #endif
>> +
>> void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>> {
>> struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
>> @@ -1727,11 +1727,12 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>> continue;
>> if (!kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(vcpu))
>> continue;
>> - if (kvm_vcpu_yield_to(vcpu)) {
>> +
>> + yielded = kvm_vcpu_yield_to(vcpu);
>> + if (yielded > 0)
>> kvm->last_boosted_vcpu = i;
>> - yielded = 1;
>> + if (yielded)
>> break;
>> - }
>> }
>
> If yielded == -ESRCH, should we not try to yield to another vcpu?
>
Yes. plan is to abort the iteration. since it means we are mostly
undercommitted.
--
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