On 09/21/2012 09:46 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:30:20 +0530
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
When PLE handler fails to find a better candidate to yield_to, it
goes back and does spin again. This is acceptable when we do not
have overcommit.
But in overcommitted scenarios (especially when we have large
number of small guests), it is better to yield.
Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 8323685..713b677 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1660,6 +1660,10 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
}
}
}
+ /* In overcommitted cases, yield instead of spinning */
+ if (!yielded && rq_nr_running() > 1)
+ schedule();
How about doing cond_resched() instead?
Actually, an actual call to yield() may be better.
That will set scheduler hints to make the scheduler pick
another task for one round, while preserving this task's
top position in the runqueue.
--
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
