From: raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Raghavendra K T)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: KVM: let other tasks run when hitting WFE
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:27:58 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ED3A66.4050407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMJs5B8Sg1MPHPsRV75mmagnYxkhzA0MKWVkwW2y0WdDVWTSxQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/22/2013 06:21 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On 22 July 2013 10:53, Raghavendra KT <raghavendra.kt.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
>>> So far, when a guest executes WFE (like when waiting for a spinlock
>>> to become unlocked), we don't do a thing and let it run uninterrupted.
>>>
>>> Another option is to trap a blocking WFE and offer the opportunity
>>> to the scheduler to switch to another task, potentially giving the
>>> vcpu holding the spinlock a chance to run sooner.
>>>
>>
>> Idea looks to be correct from my experiments on x86. It does bring some
>> percentage of benefits in overcommitted guests. Infact,
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/41 tries to do the same thing for x86.
>> (this results in using ple handler heuristics in vcpu_block pach).
>
> What about the adverse effect in the non-overcommitted case?
>
Ideally is should fail to schedule any other task and comeback to halt
loop. This should not hurt AFAICS. But I agree that, numbers needed to
support this argument.
For x86, I had seen no side effects with the experiments.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-22 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-19 13:53 [PATCH 0/4] KVM/arm64 fixes for 3.11 Marc Zyngier
2013-07-19 13:53 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: KVM: perform save/restore of PAR_EL1 Marc Zyngier
2013-07-20 21:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-07-19 13:53 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: KVM: add missing dsb before invalidating Stage-2 TLBs Marc Zyngier
2013-07-19 14:32 ` Will Deacon
2013-07-19 14:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-07-19 13:53 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: KVM: let other tasks run when hitting WFE Marc Zyngier
2013-07-19 14:25 ` Will Deacon
2013-07-19 14:29 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-07-20 22:04 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-07-22 7:36 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-07-22 8:53 ` Raghavendra KT
2013-07-22 12:51 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-07-22 13:01 ` Will Deacon
2013-07-22 13:57 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2013-07-28 20:55 ` Christoffer Dall
2013-07-29 7:35 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-07-23 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-07-23 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2013-07-19 13:53 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: KVM: remove __kvm_hyp_code_{start,end} from hyp.S Marc Zyngier
2013-07-22 7:36 ` Gleb Natapov
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=51ED3A66.4050407@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).