lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 2/2] kvm: Be courteous to other VMs in overcommitted scenario in PLE handler
On 09/21/2012 07:22 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 09:46 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:30:20 +0530
>> Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> When PLE handler fails to find a better candidate to yield_to, it
>>> goes back and does spin again. This is acceptable when we do not
>>> have overcommit.
>>> But in overcommitted scenarios (especially when we have large
>>> number of small guests), it is better to yield.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 ++++
>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> index 8323685..713b677 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> @@ -1660,6 +1660,10 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> + /* In overcommitted cases, yield instead of spinning */
>>> + if (!yielded && rq_nr_running() > 1)
>>> + schedule();
>>
>> How about doing cond_resched() instead?
>
> Actually, an actual call to yield() may be better.
>
> That will set scheduler hints to make the scheduler pick
> another task for one round, while preserving this task's
> top position in the runqueue.

I am not a scheduler expert, but I am also inclined towards
Rik's suggestion here since we set skip buddy here. Takuya?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-21 20:21    [W:0.193 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site