From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@suse.de,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, bharata@in.ibm.com,
Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] Add yield hypercall for KVM guests
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:46:59 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100803051659.GB29526@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C568477.4000602@redhat.com>
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:40:23AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>Can you do a directed yield?
> >We don't have that support yet in Linux scheduler.
>
> If you think it's useful, it would be good to design it into the
> interface, and fall back to ordinary yield if the host doesn't
> support it.
>
> A big advantage of directed yield vs yield is that you conserve
> resources within a VM; a simple yield will cause the guest to drop
> its share of cpu to other guest.
Hmm .. I see possibility of modifying yield to reclaim its "lost" timeslice when
its scheduled next as well. Basically remember what timeslice we have given
up and add that as its "bonus" when it runs next. That would keep the dynamics
of yield donation/reclaim local to the (physical) cpu and IMHO is less complex
than dealing with directed yield between tasks located across different physical
cpus. That would also address the fairness issue with yield you are pointing at?
- vatsa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-03 5:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-26 6:11 [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests (Version 0) Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-07-26 6:13 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] Debugfs support for reading an array of u32-type integers Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-07-26 6:14 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] Add yield hypercall for KVM guests Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-07-26 17:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-28 14:55 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-08-02 8:40 ` Avi Kivity
2010-08-03 5:16 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri [this message]
2010-08-03 5:33 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-08-02 8:32 ` Avi Kivity
2010-08-02 14:42 ` Ryan Harper
2010-08-02 14:50 ` Avi Kivity
2010-08-02 15:08 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-26 6:15 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] Paravirtualized spinlock implementation " Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-08-02 8:48 ` Avi Kivity
2010-08-02 15:20 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-03 6:59 ` Avi Kivity
2010-08-03 17:47 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-02 8:53 ` Avi Kivity
2010-07-26 6:16 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] Add yield hypercall support in Qemu Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-07-26 17:18 ` [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirt-spinlock implementation for KVM guests (Version 0) Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-07-28 14:47 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-07-28 22:10 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2010-07-28 22:42 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2010-08-02 8:50 ` Avi Kivity
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=20100803051659.GB29526@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=balbir@in.ibm.com \
--cc=bharata@in.ibm.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/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