From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takuya Yoshikawa Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case in PLE handler Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:21:22 +0900 Message-ID: <20120925232122.e6fabbc5c472148aeec70234@gmail.com> References: <20120921115942.27611.67488.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120921120000.27611.71321.sendpatchset@codeblue> <505C654B.2050106@redhat.com> <505CA2EB.7050403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50607F1F.2040704@redhat.com> <50615EE4.1040809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50616781.3000406@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Raghavendra K T , Rik van Riel , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Marcelo Tosatti , Srikar , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , KVM , Jiannan Ouyang , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Gleb Natapov To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50616781.3000406@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:12:49 +0200 Avi Kivity wrote: > It will. The tradeoff is between false-positive costs (undercommit) and > true positive costs (overcommit). I think undercommit should perform > well no matter what. > > If we utilize preempt notifiers to track overcommit dynamically, then we > can vary the spin time dynamically. Keep it long initially, as we get > more preempted vcpus make it shorter. What will happen if we pin each vcpu thread to some core? I don't want to see so many vcpu threads moving around without being pinned at all. In that case, we don't want to make KVM do any work of searching a vcpu thread to yield to. Thanks, Takuya