From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 09:48:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4CF90341.4020101@redhat.com> References: <20101202144129.4357fe00@annuminas.surriel.com> <20101202144423.3ad1908d@annuminas.surriel.com> <1291355656.7633.124.camel@marge.simson.net> <20101203134618.GG27994@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1291387511.7992.15.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kiviti , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Anthony Liguori To: Mike Galbraith Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1291387511.7992.15.camel@marge.simson.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 12/03/2010 09:45 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > I'll have to go back and re-read that. Off the top of my head, I see no > way it could matter which container the numbers live in as long as they > keep advancing, and stay in the same runqueue. (hm, task weights would > have to be the same too or scaled. dangerous business, tinkering with > vruntimes) They're not necessarily in the same runqueue, the VCPU that is given time might be on another CPU than the one that was spinning on a lock. -- All rights reversed