On 12/03/2010 12:29 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:09:01PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
I don't see how that is going to help get the lock
released, when the VCPU holding the lock is on another
CPU.
Even the directed yield() is not guaranteed to get the lock released, given its
shooting in the dark?
True, that's a fair point.
Anyway, the intention of yield() proposed was not to get lock released
immediately (which will happen eventually), but rather to avoid inefficiency
associated with (long) spinning and at the same time make sure we are not
leaking our bandwidth to other guests because of a naive yield ..
A KVM guest can run on the host alongside short-lived
processes, though. How can we ensure that a VCPU that
donates time gets it back again later, when the task
time was donated to may no longer exist?
--
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
