On 10/31/2012 06:11 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 10/31/2012 06:08 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/29/2012 04:07 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Also we do not update last boosted vcpu in failure cases.
#endif
+
void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
{
struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
@@ -1727,11 +1727,12 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
continue;
if (!kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(vcpu))
continue;
- if (kvm_vcpu_yield_to(vcpu)) {
+
+ yielded = kvm_vcpu_yield_to(vcpu);
+ if (yielded > 0)
kvm->last_boosted_vcpu = i;
- yielded = 1;
+ if (yielded)
break;
- }
}
If yielded == -ESRCH, should we not try to yield to another vcpu?
Yes. plan is to abort the iteration. since it means we are mostly
undercommitted.
Sorry if it was ambiguous. I wanted to say we do not want to continue
yield to another vcpu..
--
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
