lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [26]   [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 Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:26:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 15:20 +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > Wouldn't a clean solution be to promote a task's scheduler
> > class to the spinner class when we PLE (or come from some special
> > syscall
> > for userspace spinlocks?)?
>
> Userspace spinlocks are typically employed to avoid syscalls..

I'm guessing there could be a slow path - spin N times and then give
up and yield.

>
> > That class would be higher priority than the
> > fair class and would schedule in FIFO order, but it would only run its
> > tasks for short periods before switching.
>
> Since lock hold times aren't limited, esp. for things like userspace
> 'spin' locks, you've got a very good denial of service / opportunity for
> abuse right there.

Maybe add some throttling to avoid overuse/maliciousness?

>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-26 16:01    [W:0.089 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site