On 12/03/2010 10:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 09:48 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/03/2010 09:45 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I'll have to go back and re-read that. Off the top of my head, I see no
way it could matter which container the numbers live in as long as they
keep advancing, and stay in the same runqueue. (hm, task weights would
have to be the same too or scaled. dangerous business, tinkering with
vruntimes)
They're not necessarily in the same runqueue, the
VCPU that is given time might be on another CPU
than the one that was spinning on a lock.
I don't think pumping vruntime cross cfs_rq would be safe, for the
reason noted (et al). No competition means vruntime is meaningless.
Donating just advances a clock that nobody's looking at.
Do you have suggestions on what I should do to make
this yield_to functionality work?
I'm willing to implement pretty much anything the
scheduler people will be happy with :)
--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
