lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler
On 07/11/2012 02:16 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> yes the data structure itself seems based on the algorithm
>>> and not on arch specific things. That should work. If we move that to common
>>> code then s390 will use that scheme automatically for the cases were we call
>>> kvm_vcpu_on_spin(). All others archs as well.
>>
>> ARM doesn't have an instruction for cpu_relax(), so it can't intercept
>> it. Given ppc's dislike of overcommit,
>
> What dislike of overcommit?

I understood ppc virtualization is more of the partitioning sort.
Perhaps I misunderstood it. But the reliance on device assignment, the
restrictions on scheduling, etc. all point to it.

>
>> and the way it implements cpu_relax() by adjusting hw thread priority,
>
> Yeah, I don't think we can intercept relaxing.

... and the lack of ability to intercept cpu_relax() ...

> It's basically a nop-like instruction that gives hardware hints on its current priorities.

That's what x88 PAUSE does. But we can intercept it (and not just any
execution - we can restrict intercept to tight loops executed more than
a specific number of times).

> That said, we can always add PV code.

Sure, but that's defeated by advancements like self-tuning PLE exits.
It's hard to get this right.

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




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-11 14:02    [W:0.130 / U:1.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site