From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case in PLE handler Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:10:01 +0530 Message-ID: <50604691.90904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120921115942.27611.67488.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120921120000.27611.71321.sendpatchset@codeblue> <1348486423.11847.45.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Avi Kivity , Ingo Molnar , Marcelo Tosatti , Rik van Riel , Srikar , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , KVM , Jiannan Ouyang , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Gleb Natapov To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1348486423.11847.45.camel@twins> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 09/24/2012 05:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 17:30 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> +unsigned long rq_nr_running(void) >> +{ >> + return this_rq()->nr_running; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rq_nr_running); > > Uhm,.. no, that's a horrible thing to export. > True.. I had the same fear :). Other options I thought were something like nr_running()/num_online_cpus, this_cpu_load(), etc.. Could you please let me know, if we can rely some good metric to say, system is not overcommitted/overcommitted?