Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] directed yield for Pause Loop Exiting

[Avi Kivity]

On 12/13/2010 02:39 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx>  [2010-12-13 13:57:37]:
>
> >  On 12/11/2010 03:57 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >  >* Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx>   [2010-12-11 09:31:24]:
> >  >
> >  >>   On 12/10/2010 07:03 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >  >>   >>
> >  >>   >>    Scheduler people, please flame me with anything I may have done
> >  >>   >>    wrong, so I can do it right for a next version :)
> >  >>   >>
> >  >>   >
> >  >>   >This is a good problem statement, there are other things to consider
> >  >>   >as well
> >  >>   >
> >  >>   >1. If a hard limit feature is enabled underneath, donating the
> >  >>   >timeslice would probably not make too much sense in that case
> >  >>
> >  >>   What's the alternative?
> >  >>
> >  >>   Consider a two vcpu guest with a 50% hard cap.  Suppose the workload
> >  >>   involves ping-ponging within the guest.  If the scheduler decides to
> >  >>   schedule the vcpus without any overlap, then the throughput will be
> >  >>   dictated by the time slice.  If we allow donation, throughput is
> >  >>   limited by context switch latency.
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  >If the vpcu holding the lock runs more and capped, the timeslice
> >  >transfer is a heuristic that will not help.
> >
> >  Why not?  as long as we shift the cap as well.
> >
>
> Shifting the cap would break it, no?

The total cap for the guest would remain.

> Anyway, that is something for us
> to keep track of as we add additional heuristics, not a show stopper.

Sure, as long as we see a way to fix it eventually.

--
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/