[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1909fa3-61f3-de6b-1aa1-8bc36285e1e4@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:59:13 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Boost vCPU candidiate in user mode which is
delivering interrupt
On 19/04/21 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> If false positives are a big concern, what about adding another pass to the loop
> and only yielding to usermode vCPUs with interrupts in the second full pass?
> I.e. give vCPUs that are already in kernel mode priority, and only yield to
> handle an interrupt if there are no vCPUs in kernel mode.
>
> kvm_arch_dy_runnable() pulls in pv_unhalted, which seems like a good thing.
pv_unhalted won't help if you're waiting for a kernel spinlock though,
would it? Doing two passes (or looking for a "best" candidate that
prefers kernel mode vCPUs to user mode vCPUs waiting for an interrupt)
seems like the best choice overall.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists