[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fe72592c-c721-bece-1469-95eebf931299@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:03:09 +0800
From: yezengruan <yezengruan@...wei.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>
CC: <joelaf@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<suleiman@...gle.com>,
"kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Wanghaibin (D)" <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>,
<yezengruan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] arm64:kvm: teach guest sched that VCPUs can be
preempted
On 2020/8/17 10:03, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
> .
Hi Sergey,
I have a set of patches similar to yours.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191226135833.1052-1-yezengruan@huawei.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists