Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:25:56 +0200 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |