On 8/28/15 12:25 AM, David Matlack wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
Hi David,
On 8/26/15 1:19 AM, David Matlack wrote:
Thanks for writing v2, Wanpeng.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Wanpeng Li
wrote:
There is a downside of halt_poll_ns since poll is still happen
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi David,
> On 8/26/15 1:19 AM, David Matlack wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for writing v2, Wanpeng.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Wanpeng Li
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a downside of halt_poll_ns since poll is still happen for idle
>>> VCPU whi
Hi David,
On 8/26/15 1:19 AM, David Matlack wrote:
Thanks for writing v2, Wanpeng.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
There is a downside of halt_poll_ns since poll is still happen for idle
VCPU which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
halt_poll_ns dyna
On 8/26/15 1:19 AM, David Matlack wrote:
Thanks for writing v2, Wanpeng.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
There is a downside of halt_poll_ns since poll is still happen for idle
VCPU which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
halt_poll_ns dynamically.
Thanks for writing v2, Wanpeng.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> There is a downside of halt_poll_ns since poll is still happen for idle
> VCPU which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
> halt_poll_ns dynamically.
What testing have you done with these
There is a downside of halt_poll_ns since poll is still happen for idle
VCPU which can waste cpu usage. This patch adds the ability to adjust
halt_poll_ns dynamically.
There are two new kernel parameters for changing the halt_poll_ns:
halt_poll_ns_grow and halt_poll_ns_shrink. A third new param