From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Register Linux dyntick timer as per-thread signal
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:26:06 +0200
Message-ID: <20110616102606.GA24541@elte.hu>
References: <4DF9CD7E.5020509@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>,
	Asias He <asias.hejun@gmail.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33508 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753367Ab1FPK3Z (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:29:25 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DF9CD7E.5020509@siemens.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>


* Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar pointed out that sending the timer signal to the whole
> process, just blocking it everywhere, is suboptimal with an increasing
> number of threads. QEMU is using this pattern so far.
> 
> But Linux provides a (non-portable) way to restrict the signal to a
> single thread: Use SIGEV_THREAD_ID unless we are forced to emulate
> signalfd via an additional thread. That case could theoretically be
> optimized as well, but it doesn't look worth bothering.

Would be nice to mention it in the changelog that the context and 
motivation for my remark was a patch sent for tools/kvm/ by Asias He:

  kvm tools: Block SIGALRM for vcpu thread using sig_block() helper

Thanks,

	Ingo