Re: [PATCH RFC V4 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directedyield
From: Avi Kivity
Date: Tue Jul 17 2012 - 04:30:09 EST
On 07/16/2012 07:10 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 06:07 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> + bool eligible;
>>> + eligible = !vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted ||
>>> + (vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted&&
>>> + vcpu->ple.dy_eligible);
>>> + if (vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted)
>>> + vcpu->ple.dy_eligible = !vcpu->ple.dy_eligible;
>> Probably should assign 'true', since the previous value is essentially
> I suspect the intended purpose of this conditional is to
> flip the eligibility of a vcpu for being selected as a
> direct yield target.
> In other words, that bit of the code is correct.
If vcpu A is in a long spin loop and is preempted away, and vcpu B dips
several times in kvm_vcpu_on_spin(), then it will act as intended. But
if vcpu A is spinning for x% of its time and processing on the other,
then vcpu B will flip its dy_eligible for those x%, and not flip it when
it's processing. I don't understand how this is useful.
I guess this is an attempt to impose fairness on yielding, and it makes
sense to do this, but I don't know if this is the best way to achieve it.
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/