From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Avi Kiviti <avi@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:34:46 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D01ADE6.3010508@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101203140607.GA9800@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 12/03/2010 09:06 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:03:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> No, because they do receive service (they spend some time spinning
>> before being interrupted), so the respective vruntimes will increase, at
>> some point they'll pass B0 and it'll get scheduled.
>
> Is that sufficient to ensure that B0 receives its fair share (1/3 cpu in this
> case)?
I have a rough idea for a simpler way to ensure
fairness.
At yield_to time, we could track in the runqueue
structure that a task received CPU time (and on
the other runqueue that a task donated CPU time).
The balancer can count time-given-to CPUs as
busier, and donated-time CPUs as less busy,
moving tasks away in the unlikely event that
the same task gets keeping CPU time given to
it.
Conversely, it can move other tasks onto CPUs
that have tasks on them that cannot make progress
right now and are just donating their CPU time.
Most of the time the time-given and time-received
should balance out and there should be little to
no influence on the load balancer. This code would
just be there to deal with exceptional circumstances,
to avoid the theoretical worst case people have
described.
--
All rights reversed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-10 4:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-02 19:41 [RFC PATCH 0/3] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting Rik van Riel
2010-12-02 19:43 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] kvm: keep track of which task is running a KVM vcpu Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 1:18 ` Chris Wright
2010-12-03 14:50 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 15:55 ` Chris Wright
2010-12-05 12:40 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-03 12:17 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 14:16 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-05 12:59 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-02 19:44 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 0:50 ` Chris Wright
2010-12-03 18:27 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 19:30 ` Chris Wright
2010-12-03 21:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-03 5:54 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-03 13:46 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 14:45 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-03 14:48 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 15:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-03 15:35 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 16:20 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 17:09 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 17:29 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 17:33 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 17:45 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 20:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-03 21:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-03 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-03 13:30 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-03 14:06 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 14:10 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-03 21:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-04 13:02 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-10 4:34 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2010-12-10 8:39 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-12-10 14:55 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-08 17:55 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-08 20:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 20:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-08 22:59 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-02 19:45 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] kvm: use yield_to instead of sleep in kvm_vcpu_on_spin Rik van Riel
2010-12-03 2:24 ` Chris Wright
2010-12-05 12:58 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-05 12:56 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-08 22:38 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-09 10:28 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-09 17:07 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-11 7:27 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-02 22:41 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting Chris Wright
2010-12-05 13:02 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-10 5:03 ` Balbir Singh
2010-12-10 14:54 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-11 7:31 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-11 13:57 ` Balbir Singh
2010-12-13 11:57 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-13 12:39 ` Balbir Singh
2010-12-13 12:42 ` Avi Kivity
2010-12-13 17:02 ` Rik van Riel
2010-12-14 9:25 ` Balbir Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D01ADE6.3010508@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox