* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> [2012-09-27 14:03:59]: > On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > >> [...] > > 2) looking at the result (comparing A & C) , I do feel we have > > significant in iterating over vcpus (when compared to even vmexit) > > so We still would need undercommit fix sugested by PeterZ (improving by > > 140%). ? > > Looking only at the current runqueue? My worry is that it misses a lot > of cases. Maybe try the current runqueue first and then others. > Okay. Do you mean we can have something like + if (rq->nr_running == 1 && p_rq->nr_running == 1) { + yielded = -ESRCH; + goto out_irq; + } in the Peter's patch ? ( I thought lot about && or || . Both seem to have their own cons ). But that should be only when we have short term imbalance, as PeterZ told. I am experimenting all these for V2 patch. Will come back with analysis and patch. > Or were you referring to something else? > -- 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