On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
> How about something like:
>
> @@ -1941,10 +1976,14 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> */
> if (kvm_vcpu_check_block(vcpu) < 0) {
>
On 9/3/15 2:09 AM, David Matlack wrote:
[...]
+
static int kvm_vcpu_check_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
if (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)) {
@@ -1929,6 +1963,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
ktime_t start, cur;
DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
bool waited
On 9/3/15 3:31 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 02/09/2015 21:23, David Matlack wrote:
I actually wasn't thinking about vcpu->halt_poll_ns though. If
single_task_running() breaks us out of the loop we will "goto out" instead
of scheduling. My suspicion is this will cause us to loop calling
On 02/09/2015 21:23, David Matlack wrote:
>
> I actually wasn't thinking about vcpu->halt_poll_ns though. If
> single_task_running() breaks us out of the loop we will "goto out" instead
> of scheduling. My suspicion is this will cause us to loop calling
> kvm_vcpu_block and starve the waiting
On 9/4/15 12:07 AM, David Matlack wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
How about something like:
@@ -1941,10 +1976,14 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
*/
if (kvm_vcpu_check_block(vcpu)
On 9/3/15 2:09 AM, David Matlack wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
There is a downside of always-poll since poll is still happened for idle
vCPUs which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
halt_poll_ns dynamically, to grow
On 9/4/15 9:16 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
[...]
+
static int kvm_vcpu_check_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
if (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)) {
@@ -1929,6 +1963,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
ktime_t start, cur;
DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
bool waited =
There is a downside of always-poll since poll is still happened for idle
vCPUs which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
halt_poll_ns dynamically, to grow halt_poll_ns when shot halt is detected,
and to shrink halt_poll_ns when long halt is detected.
There are two new
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> There is a downside of always-poll since poll is still happened for idle
> vCPUs which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
> halt_poll_ns dynamically, to grow halt_poll_ns when shot halt is
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2015 20:09, David Matlack wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> There is a downside of always-poll since poll is still happened for idle
>>> vCPUs which
On 02/09/2015 20:09, David Matlack wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> There is a downside of always-poll since poll is still happened for idle
>> vCPUs which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
>> halt_poll_ns
11 matches
Mail list logo