On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:21:16PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/14/2011 08:21 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:39:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 12/14/2011 02:16 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > Having this controlled from userspace means it doesn't work for > > > > > SIGSTOP > > > > > or for long scheduling delays. What about doing this automatically > > > > > based on preempt notifiers? > > > > > > > > Long scheduling delays should be considered hangups from the guest > > > > perspective. > > > > > > Why? To the guest it looks like slow hardware, but it will interpret it > > > as a softlockup. > > > > Slow enough that progress of the watchdog thread is unable to keep up > > with timer interrupt processing. This is considered a hang and > > should be reported. > > It's not a guest hang though!
No, but your host system is in such a load state that for the sake of system usability you better print out a warning message. I don't see the advantage of preempt notifiers over the simple, paravirt solution proposed? Note kvmclock is already paravirt. What do you want to be done in preempt notifiers? Measure what to consider setting this flag? -- 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
