On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:32:33PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 07:58:18PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > * Gleb Natapov <[email protected]> [2012-01-17 15:20:51]: > > > > > > Having the hypercall makes the intent of vcpu (to sleep on a kick) > > > > clear to > > > > hypervisor vs assuming that because of a trapped HLT instruction (which > > > > will anyway won't work when yield_on_hlt=0). > > > > > > > The purpose of yield_on_hlt=0 is to allow VCPU to occupy CPU for the > > > entire time slice no mater what. I do not think disabling yield on HLT > > > is even make sense in CPU oversubscribe scenario. > > > > Yes, so is there any real use for yield_on_hlt=0? I believe Anthony > > initially added it as a way to implement CPU bandwidth capping for VMs, > > which would ensure that busy VMs don't eat into cycles meant for a idle > > VM. Now that we have proper support in scheduler for CPU bandwidth capping, > > is > > there any real world use for yield_on_hlt=0? If not, deprecate it? > > > I was against adding it in the first place, so if IBM no longer needs it > I am for removing it ASAP.
+1. Anthony? _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
