lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenarios in PLE handler
On 10/03/2012 04:29 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> [2012-09-27 14:03:59]:
>
>> On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> >>
> [...]
>> > 2) looking at the result (comparing A & C) , I do feel we have
>> > significant in iterating over vcpus (when compared to even vmexit)
>> > so We still would need undercommit fix sugested by PeterZ (improving by
>> > 140%). ?
>>
>> Looking only at the current runqueue? My worry is that it misses a lot
>> of cases. Maybe try the current runqueue first and then others.
>>
>
> Okay. Do you mean we can have something like
>
> + if (rq->nr_running == 1 && p_rq->nr_running == 1) {
> + yielded = -ESRCH;
> + goto out_irq;
> + }
>
> in the Peter's patch ?
>
> ( I thought lot about && or || . Both seem to have their own cons ).
> But that should be only when we have short term imbalance, as PeterZ
> told.

I'm missing the context. What is p_rq?

What I mean was:

if can_yield_to_process_in_current_rq
do that
else if can_yield_to_process_in_other_rq
do that
else
return -ESRCH


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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-03 20:01    [W:0.606 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site