From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takuya Yoshikawa Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] kvm: Be courteous to other VMs in overcommitted scenario in PLE handler Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:43:22 +0900 Message-ID: <20120924224322.f40fba7934383f939e92b78c@gmail.com> References: <20120921115942.27611.67488.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120921120019.27611.66093.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120921224636.18cccbd6c33b161975f2a8cb@gmail.com> <505C712F.4060800@redhat.com> <505CA7C4.4080307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rik van Riel , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Avi Kivity , Srikar , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , KVM , Jiannan Ouyang , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Gleb Natapov To: Raghavendra K T Return-path: In-Reply-To: <505CA7C4.4080307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:15:40 +0530 Raghavendra K T wrote: > >> How about doing cond_resched() instead? > > > > Actually, an actual call to yield() may be better. > > > > That will set scheduler hints to make the scheduler pick > > another task for one round, while preserving this task's > > top position in the runqueue. > > I am not a scheduler expert, but I am also inclined towards > Rik's suggestion here since we set skip buddy here. Takuya? > Yes, I think it's better. But I hope that experts in Cc will suggest the best way. Thanks, Takuya