[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230622131445.GQ4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:14:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Per Bilse <Per.Bilse@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
"open list:X86 ENTRY CODE" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:XEN HYPERVISOR INTERFACE"
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updates to Xen hypercall preemption
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 02:05:13PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/06/2023 9:26 am, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 07:22:53AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >
> >> The hypercalls we are talking of are synchronous ones. They are running
> >> in the context of the vcpu doing the call (like a syscall from userland is
> >> running in the process context).
> > (so time actually passes from the guest's pov?)
>
> Yes. And in principle it's wired into stolen time.
Hmm, that means that if the scheduler accounts for stolen time (see
update_rq_clock_task(), PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING hunk) then it appears
as if no time has passed, which might affect preemption decisions.
Oh well, we'll think about it when it's shown to be a problem I suppose
:-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists