On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My apologies for the slow reply. > > On (20/08/17 13:25), Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > It really isn't the same thing at all. You are exposing PV spinlocks, > > while Sergey exposes preemption to vcpus. > > > > Correct, we see vcpu preemption as a "fundamental" feature, with > consequences that affect scheduling, which is a core feature :) > > Marc, is there anything in particular that you dislike about this RFC > patch set? Joel has some ideas, which we may discuss offline if that > works for you. Hi Marc, Sergey, Just checking what is the latest on this series? About the idea me and Sergey discussed, at a high level we discussed being able to share information similar to "Is the vCPU preempted?" using a more arch-independent infrastructure. I do not believe this needs to be arch-specific. Maybe the speciifc mechanism about how to share a page of information needs to be arch-specific, but the actual information shared need not be. This could open the door to sharing more such information in an arch-independent way (for example, if the scheduler needs to know other information such as the capacity of the CPU that the vCPU is on). Other thoughts? thanks, - Joel _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
