Re: [PATCH 2/3] kvm hypervisor : Add hypercalls to support pv-ticketlock

[Rik van Riel]

On 01/21/2011 09:02 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:56:27AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > >   The key here is not to
> > > sleep when waiting for locks (as implemented by current patch-series, which can
> > > put other VMs at an advantage by giving them more time than they are entitled
> > > to)
> >
> > Why?  If a VCPU can't make progress because its waiting for some
> > resource, then why not schedule something else instead?
>
> In the process, "something else" can get more share of cpu resource than its
> entitled to and that's where I was bit concerned. I guess one could
> employ hard-limits to cap "something else's" bandwidth where it is of real
> concern (like clouds).

I'd like to think I fixed those things in my yield_task_fair +
yield_to + kvm_vcpu_on_spin patch series from yesterday.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/20/403

--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/