On 22 July 2013 10:53, Raghavendra KT <raghavendra.kt.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> So far, when a guest executes WFE (like when waiting for a spinlock >> to become unlocked), we don't do a thing and let it run uninterrupted. >> >> Another option is to trap a blocking WFE and offer the opportunity >> to the scheduler to switch to another task, potentially giving the >> vcpu holding the spinlock a chance to run sooner. >> > > Idea looks to be correct from my experiments on x86. It does bring some > percentage of benefits in overcommitted guests. Infact, > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/41 tries to do the same thing for x86. > (this results in using ple handler heuristics in vcpu_block pach). What about the adverse effect in the non-overcommitted case? -- 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
