Re: [PATCH RFC V4 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directedyield

[Raghavendra K T]

On 07/17/2012 02:39 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
[...]
> 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.
>
> Suppose A is doing really good job and and has not done pause loop
> exit, we will not touch it's dy_eligible flag. Also dy_eligible flag
> will not prevent B doing yield_to to A.
>
> Suppose A has started spinning in the beginning itself, it will do pause
> loop exit if it crosses threshold, and we will now start toggling
> dy_eligible.
>
> Was that you were referring?
>
> And it seems we may still have to set dy_eligible flag to false at the
> beginning of vcpu_on_spin along with cpu_relax_intercepted = true, like
> below, so that we do not have spill-over status from previous PL exits.
>
> vcpu_on_spin()
> {
> cpu_relax_intercepted = true;
> dy_eligible = false;
> .
> .
> .
>
> cpu_relax_intercepted = false;
> }
>
> Let me know if that addresses your concern.

Thought you brought in is miraculous. taking care of not having 
spill-over dy_eligible status is needed for making algorithm technically 
more correct. will spin V5 with all these changes.

> > 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.

--
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/