[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200817020310.GA1210848@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:03:10 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
suleiman@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] arm64:kvm: teach guest sched that VCPUs can be
preempted
On (20/07/21 13:17), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC
>
> We noticed that in a number of cases when we wake_up_process()
> on arm64 guest we end up enqueuing that task on a preempted VCPU. The culprit
> appears to be the fact that arm64 guests are not aware of VCPU preemption
> as such, so when sched picks up an idle VCPU it always assumes that VCPU
> is available:
>
> wake_up_process()
> try_to_wake_up()
> select_task_rq_fair()
> available_idle_cpu()
> vcpu_is_preempted() // return false;
>
> Which is, obviously, not the case.
>
> This RFC patch set adds a simple vcpu_is_preempted() implementation so
> that scheduler can make better decisions when it search for the idle
> (v)CPU.
Hi,
A gentle ping.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists