From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 linux: prevent halted VCPUs from eating up CPU bandwidth Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:21:54 +0200 Message-ID: <447C2AD2.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <447B22B4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <73269221f5db8876639054dfebfa5617@cl.cam.ac.uk> <447C1A39.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> Keir Fraser 30.05.06 10:49 >>> > >On 30 May 2006, at 09:11, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Indeed, this was the behavior I intended, but somehow I failed to find >> the VCPUOP_down operation that I was looking >> for. Here's an updated patch. > >Given that you went for the more complicated definition of halt() that >calls block when event delivery is enabled, is it actually necessary to >not compile the halt-checking routine? If event delivery is enabled in What halt-checking routine do you mean here? >that function, shouldn't we return from each invocation of halt() on >(at least) each timer interrupt? If not, I wonder why our behaviour >there differs from native? Yes, I think the net effect should be similar behavior to native. Jan