From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:31:36 +0300 Message-ID: <4FFEC3A8.6000000@redhat.com> References: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> <1341870457.2909.27.camel@oc2024037011.ibm.com> <4FFD4091.8040804@redhat.com> <4FFD86CE.9040501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4FFD874B.4090606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4FFE8787.2020806@redhat.com> <4FFE89E7.2080409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FFE89E7.2080409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Raghavendra K T Cc: habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , S390 , Carsten Otte , Christian Borntraeger , KVM , chegu vinod , LKML , X86 , Gleb Natapov , linux390@de.ibm.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Joerg Roedel List-ID: On 07/12/2012 11:25 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote: >> >> The problem occurs even with no overcommit at all. One vcpu is in a >> legitimately long pause loop. All those exits accomplish nothing, since >> all vcpus are scheduled. Better to let it spin in guest mode. >> > > I agree. One idea is we can have a scan_window to limit the scan of all > n vcpus each time we enter vcpu_spin, to say 2*log n initially; Not sure I agree. The subset that we scan is in no way special, there's no reason to suppose it would be effective. We can make the loop exit time scale with the number of vcpus to account for the greater effort needed to wake a vcpu. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function