From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59623)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kernellwp@gmail.com>) id 1XcYcs-0003Fa-Q3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:44:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kernellwp@gmail.com>) id 1XcYcj-0003Nl-C5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:44:50 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]:56454)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kernellwp@gmail.com>) id 1XcYcj-0003NY-0c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:44:41 -0400
Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id bj1so1619444pad.15
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5437C6A2.3020908@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 19:44:34 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5437C505.4010504@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5437C505.4010504@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [question] Is there a plan to introduce a unified
 co-scheduling mechanism to CFS ?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Zhang Haoyu <ahzhanghaoyu@gmail.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>


于 10/10/14, 7:37 PM, Zhang Haoyu 写道:
> Hi,
>
> Is it worthy to introduce a unified co-scheduling mechanism to CFS ?
> Because multiple cooperating threads or tasks frequently synchronize 
> with each other,
> not executing them concurrently would only increase the latency of 
> synchronization.
> For example, a thread blocking in spinlock to waiting for another 
> thread to release the same spinlock
> might reduce its waiting time by being executed concurrently with the 
> thread which hold the same spinlock.
> In virtualization scenario, multiple vcpus (which belong to the same 
> vm) co-scheduling is more desired
> when several cooperating threads/task is running in guest.
>
> Is there a plane for this work?

Please refer to gang scheduler.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

>
> Thanks,
> Zhang Haoyu
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html