On 03/30/2012 01:07 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 11:33 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 03/29/2012 03:28 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 03/28/2012 08:21 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
>> I really like below ideas. Thanks for that!.
>>
>>> - from the PLE handler, don't wake up a vcpu that is sleeping
>>> because it
>>> is waiting for a kick
>>
>> How about, adding another pass in the beginning of kvm_vcpu_on_spin()
>> to check if any vcpu is already kicked. This would almost result in
>> yield_to(kicked_vcpu). IMO this is also worth trying.
>>
>> will try above ideas soon.
>>
>
> I have patch something like below in mind to try:
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index d3b98b1..5127668 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -1608,15 +1608,18 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
> * else and called schedule in __vcpu_run. Hopefully that
> * VCPU is holding the lock that we need and will release it.
> * We approximate round-robin by starting at the last boosted VCPU.
> + * Priority is given to vcpu that are unhalted.
> */
> - for (pass = 0; pass < 2 && !yielded; pass++) {
> + for (pass = 0; pass < 3 && !yielded; pass++) {
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> struct task_struct *task = NULL;
> struct pid *pid;
> - if (!pass && i < last_boosted_vcpu) {
> + if (!pass && !vcpu->pv_unhalted)
> + continue;
> + else if (pass == 1 && i < last_boosted_vcpu) {
> i = last_boosted_vcpu;
> continue;
> - } else if (pass && i > last_boosted_vcpu)
> + } else if (pass == 2 && i > last_boosted_vcpu)
> break;
> if (vcpu == me)
> continue;
>
Actually I think this is unneeded. The loops tries to find vcpus that
are runnable but not running (vcpu_active(vcpu->wq)), and halted vcpus
don't match this condition.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
