On 10/03/2012 04:29 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> [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'm missing the context. What is p_rq?
What I mean was:
if can_yield_to_process_in_current_rq
do that
else if can_yield_to_process_in_other_rq
do that
else
return -ESRCH
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
