On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 19:40 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 07:36:07PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:03:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > No, because they do receive service (they spend some time spinning > > > before being interrupted), so the respective vruntimes will increase, at > > > some point they'll pass B0 and it'll get scheduled. > > > > Is that sufficient to ensure that B0 receives its fair share (1/3 cpu in this > > case)? > > Hmm perhaps yes, althought at cost of tons of context switches, which would be > nice to minimize on? Don't care, as long as the guys calling yield_to() pay for that time its their problem. -- 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
