Re: [PATCH][KVM][retry 1] Add support for Pause Filtering to AMDSVM

[Avi Kivity]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 17:24 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>   
> > > I.e. this is a somewhat poor solution as far as scheduling goes. But 
> > > i'm wondering what the CPU side does. Can REP-NOP really take 
> > > thousands of cycles? If yes, under what circumstances?
> > >   
> > >       
> > The guest is running rep-nop in a loop while trying to acquire a 
> > spinlock.  The hardware detects this (most likely, repeated rep-nop with 
> > the same rip) and exits.  We can program the loop count; obviously if 
> > we're spinning for only a short while it's better to keep spinning while 
> > hoping the lock will be released soon.
> >
> > The idea is to detect that the guest is not making forward progress and 
> > yield.  If I could tell the scheduler, you may charge me a couple of 
> > milliseconds, I promise not to sue, that would be ideal.  Other tasks 
> > can become eligible, hopefully the task holding the spinlock, and by the 
> > time we're scheduled back the long running task will have finished and 
> > released the lock.
> >
> > For newer Linux as a guest we're better off paravirtualizing this, so we 
> > can tell the host which vcpu holds the lock; in this case kvm will want 
> > to say, take a couple milliseconds off my account and transfer it to 
> > this task (so called directed yield).  However there's no reason to 
> > paravirtualize all cpu_relax() calls.
> >     
>
> So we're now officially giving up on (soft) realtime virtualization?
>
>   

Wouldn't realtime guests be in a realtime scheduling class?  That ought 
to ignore this time_yield() (or however it is eventually named).

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/