From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V5 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directed
 yield
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:09:04 +0530
Message-ID: <5006CA88.8040906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20120718133717.5321.71347.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com> <20120718133800.5321.51446.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	S390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, linux390@de.ibm.com,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e23smtp09.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.142]:36307 "EHLO
	e23smtp09.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750863Ab2GROlk (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:41:40 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e23smtp09.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org> from <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:27:52 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20120718133800.5321.51446.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/18/2012 07:08 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> +bool kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	bool eligible;
> +
> +	eligible = !vcpu->spin_loop.in_spin_loop ||
> +			(vcpu->spin_loop.in_spin_loop&&
> +			 vcpu->spin_loop.dy_eligible);
> +
> +	if (vcpu->spin_loop.in_spin_loop)
> +		vcpu->spin_loop.dy_eligible = !vcpu->spin_loop.dy_eligible;
> +
> +	return eligible;
> +}

I should have added a comment like:
Since algorithm is based on heuristics, accessing another vcpu data
without locking does not harm. It may result in trying to yield to  same 
VCPU, fail and continue with next and so on.