* 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
