From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44575 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PNse8-0008VC-60
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:47:21 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>) id 1PNse7-0004sP-52
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:47:20 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:54838)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>) id 1PNse6-0004rz-RP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:47:19 -0500
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4CF6A540.9050608@redhat.com>
References: <1290530963-3448-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<4CECCA39.4060702@redhat.com> <4CED1A23.9030607@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4CED1FD3.1000801@redhat.com>
	<20101201123742.GA3780@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4CF6460C.5070604@redhat.com>
	<20101201161221.GA8073@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1291220718.32004.1696.camel@laptop>
	<20101201171758.GA8514@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
	<1291224176.32004.1763.camel@laptop>  <4CF6854C.4020500@redhat.com>
	<1291230476.32004.1922.camel@laptop>  <4CF6A0E4.1050108@redhat.com>
	<1291232136.32004.1964.camel@laptop>  <4CF6A540.9050608@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:47:35 +0100
Message-ID: <1291232855.32004.1982.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] qemu-kvm: response to SIGUSR1 to
	start/stop a VCPU (v2)
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Avi@gnu.org

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:42 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 02:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:24 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>=20
> >> Even if we equalized the amount of CPU time each VCPU
> >> ends up getting across some time interval, that is no
> >> guarantee they get useful work done, or that the time
> >> gets fairly divided to _user processes_ running inside
> >> the guest.
> >
> > Right, and Jeremy was working on making the guest load-balancer aware o=
f
> > that so the user-space should get fairly scheduled on service (of
> > course, that's assuming you run a linux guest with that logic in).
>=20
> At that point, you might not need the host side balancing
> any more, since the guest can move around processes
> internally (if needed).

Not quite sure what you're saying, host load-balancing is always needed,
but if you're talking about the whole directed yield thing, then yes,
paravirt spinlocks will take care of that.