From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qemu-kvm: response to SIGUSR1 to start/stop a VCPU (v2)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:49:45 +0530
Message-ID: <20101202121945.GA22268@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <4CED1FD3.1000801@redhat.com>
 <20101201123742.GA3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4CF6460C.5070604@redhat.com>
 <20101201161221.GA8073@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1291220718.32004.1696.camel@laptop>
 <20101201172953.GF8073@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1291225502.32004.1787.camel@laptop>
 <20101201180040.GH8073@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1291230582.32004.1927.camel@laptop>
 <4CF76440.30500@redhat.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:38014 "EHLO
	e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757441Ab0LBMT6 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:19:58 -0500
Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107])
	by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oB2C8Mhk000560
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 05:08:22 -0700
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168])
	by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oB2CJoHg142970
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 05:19:50 -0700
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oB2CJm5X026500
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 05:19:50 -0700
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CF76440.30500@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:17:52AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> What I'd like to see in directed yield is donating exactly the
> amount of vruntime that's needed to make the target thread run.  The

How would that work well with hard-limits? The target thread would have been
rate limited and no amount of vruntime donation would make it work
"immediately" ..

- vatsa