From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm-vmx: add module parameter to avoid trapping HLT instructions
 (v2)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:40:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4CF8BB0B.40809@redhat.com>
References: <1291298357-5695-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <20101202191416.GQ10050@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20617 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755801Ab0LCJko (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 3 Dec 2010 04:40:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20101202191416.GQ10050@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 12/02/2010 09:14 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
> Perhaps it should be a VM level option.  And then invert the notion.
> Create one idle domain w/out hlt trap.  Give that VM a vcpu per pcpu
> (pin in place probably).  And have that VM do nothing other than hlt.
> Then it's always runnable according to scheduler, and can "consume" the
> extra work that CFS wants to give away.

What's the difference between this and the Linux idle threads?

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.