[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54EF196E.4090805@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:02:38 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@...escale.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mihai.caraman@...escale.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc/kvm: Enable running guests on RT Linux
On 24/02/2015 00:27, Scott Wood wrote:
> This isn't a host PIC driver. It's guest PIC emulation, some of which
> is indeed not suitable for a rawlock (in particular, openpic_update_irq
> which loops on the number of vcpus, with a loop body that calls
> IRQ_check() which loops over all pending IRQs).
The question is what behavior is wanted of code that isn't quite
RT-ready. What is preferred, bugs or bad latency?
If the answer is bad latency (which can be avoided simply by not running
KVM on a RT kernel in production), patch 1 can be applied. If the
answer is bugs, patch 1 is not upstream material.
I myself prefer to have bad latency; if something takes a spinlock in
atomic context, that spinlock should be raw. If it hurts (latency),
don't do it (use the affected code).
Paolo
> The vcpu limits are a
> temporary bandaid to avoid the worst latencies, but I'm still skeptical
> about this being upstream material.
--
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