On 01/21/2011 09:02 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:56:27AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >>> The key here is not to >>> sleep when waiting for locks (as implemented by current patch-series, which can >>> put other VMs at an advantage by giving them more time than they are entitled >>> to) >> >> Why? If a VCPU can't make progress because its waiting for some >> resource, then why not schedule something else instead? > > In the process, "something else" can get more share of cpu resource than its > entitled to and that's where I was bit concerned. I guess one could > employ hard-limits to cap "something else's" bandwidth where it is of real > concern (like clouds). I'd like to think I fixed those things in my yield_task_fair + yield_to + kvm_vcpu_on_spin patch series from yesterday. https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/20/403 -- All rights reversed _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
