Re: [PATCH][RFC] kvm-scheduler integration

[Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>>> Won't that increase task_struct (16 bytes on 64-bit) unnecessarily?  
>>>> The function pointers are common to all virtual machines.
>>>>         
>>> well, this function pointer could then be reused by other virtual 
>>> machines as well, couldnt it?
>>>       
>> I don't get this.  If we add a couple of members to task_struct, it 
>> can't be reused.  The values will be the same across all tasks, but 
>> the memory will be gone (including tasks which aren't virtual 
>> machines).
>>     
>
> i mean, the function pointer is set by KVM, but it could be set to a 
> different value by other hypervisors.
>
> but ... no strong feelings either way, your patch is certainly fine.
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>
> 	Ingo
>   

How do you feel about some variant of this going into 2.6.23-rc1?  I 
initially thought of this as a 2.6.24 thing, but as it now looks solid, 
maybe we can hurry things along.

If Shaohua ports his spinlock->mutex convertion to the sched branch, we 
get some real benefits:

 - reduced latencies for desktop users
 - less kvm patches to carry in -rt (maybe none?)


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function