On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 18:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 20/04/21 10:48, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> I was thinking of something simpler:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> >> index 9b8e30dd5b9b..455c648f9adc 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> >> +++
On 20/04/21 10:48, Wanpeng Li wrote:
I was thinking of something simpler:
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 9b8e30dd5b9b..455c648f9adc 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -3198,10 +3198,9 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 15:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 20/04/21 08:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 14:02, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 00:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 19/04/21 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> If false positives are a
On 20/04/21 08:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 14:02, Wanpeng Li wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 00:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 19/04/21 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
If false positives are a big concern, what about adding another pass to the loop
and only yielding to
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 14:02, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 00:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > On 19/04/21 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > If false positives are a big concern, what about adding another pass to
> > > the loop
> > > and only yielding to usermode vCPUs
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 00:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 19/04/21 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > If false positives are a big concern, what about adding another pass to the
> > loop
> > and only yielding to usermode vCPUs with interrupts in the second full pass?
> > I.e. give vCPUs that
On 19/04/21 18:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
If false positives are a big concern, what about adding another pass to the loop
and only yielding to usermode vCPUs with interrupts in the second full pass?
I.e. give vCPUs that are already in kernel mode priority, and only yield to
handle an
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 21:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > On 16/04/21 05:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > From: Wanpeng Li
> > >
> > > Both lock holder vCPU and IPI receiver that has halted are condidate for
> > > boost. However, the PLE handler was
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 at 21:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 16/04/21 05:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > From: Wanpeng Li
> >
> > Both lock holder vCPU and IPI receiver that has halted are condidate for
> > boost. However, the PLE handler was originally designed to deal with the
> > lock holder
On 16/04/21 05:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
From: Wanpeng Li
Both lock holder vCPU and IPI receiver that has halted are condidate for
boost. However, the PLE handler was originally designed to deal with the
lock holder preemption problem. The Intel PLE occurs when the spinlock
waiter is in kernel
10 matches
Mail list logo
