On 12/03/2010 04:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
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.
Also, the context switches are cheaper than spinning
entire time slices on spinlocks we're not going to get
(because the VCPU holding the lock is not running).
--
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
