On 10/26/2011 03:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 08:24 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> So then do also you foresee the need for directed yield at some point,
>> to address LHP? provided we have good improvements to prove.
> Doesn't this patchset completely eliminate lock holder preemption?
Well, there's the question of whether its better for someone waiting for
a contended lock to just go to sleep and rely on the scheduler to give
CPU time to whoever currently has the lock, or if the scheduler needs a
little hint to boost the lock holder by giving it the waiter's timeslice.
I tend to prefer the former, since there's no reason to suppose that the
the lock holder vcpu is necessarily the scheduler's top priority, and it
may want to schedule something else anyway.
J
--
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
