Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS

[Avi Kivity]

On 12/27/2011 05:15 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:44:58 +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 12:58:15 +0200, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 12/23/2011 12:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see the main difference between both the reports is:
> > > > > native_flush_tlb_others.
> > > >
> > > > So it would be important to figure out why ebizzy gets into so 
> > > > many TLB flushes and why gang scheduling makes it go away.
> > > 
> > > The second part is easy - a remote tlb flush involves IPIs to many other
> > > vcpus (possible waking them up and scheduling them), then busy-waiting
> > > until they acknowledge the flush.  Gang scheduling is really good here
> > > since it shortens the busy wait, would be even better if we schedule
> > > halted vcpus (see the yield_on_hlt module parameter, set to 0). 
> > I will check this.
> > 
> I am seeing a drop of ~44% when setting yield_on_hlt = 0
>

A drop of 44% of what?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/