From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:17:39 +1000 Message-ID: <1342059459.18850.46.camel@pasglop> References: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> <4FFA8E5E.3070108@de.ibm.com> <4FFD422B.9060008@redhat.com> <4FFD52CD.7040403@de.ibm.com> <4FFD5DA3.3010001@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FFD5DA3.3010001@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Avi Kivity Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Raghavendra K T , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , S390 , Carsten Otte , KVM , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , X86 , Gleb Natapov , linux390@de.ibm.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Joerg Roedel , Christian Ehrhardt , Alexander Graf , Paul Mackerras List-ID: > ARM doesn't have an instruction for cpu_relax(), so it can't intercept > it. Given ppc's dislike of overcommit, and the way it implements > cpu_relax() by adjusting hw thread priority, I'm guessing it doesn't > intercept those either, but I'm copying the ppc people in case I'm > wrong. So it's s390 and x86. No but our spinlocks call __spin_yield() (or __rw_yield) which does some paravirt tricks already. We check if the holder is currently running, and if not, we call the H_CONFER hypercall which can be used to "give" our time slice to the holder. Our implementation of H_CONFER in KVM is currently a nop though. Cheers, Ben.