> Applied with a rewritten commit message:
>
> KVM: don't check for PF_VCPU when yielding
>
> kvm_enter_guest() has to be called with preemption disabled and will
> set PF_VCPU. Current code takes PF_VCPU as a hint that the VCPU thread
> is running and therefore needs no yield.
>
> However, th
On 25/11/2014 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> As some architectures (e.g. s390) can't disable preemption while
> entering/leaving the guest, they won't receive the yield in all situations.
>
> kvm_enter_guest() has to be called with preemption_disabled and will set
> PF_VCPU. After that point
On 28/11/2014 12:40, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> I am seeing very small improvement in <= 1x commit cases
> and for >1x overcommit, a very slight regression. But considering the
> test environment noises, I do not see much effect from the
> patch.
I think these results are the only one that could b
> On 11/28/2014 04:28 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Am 28.11.2014 um 11:08 schrieb Raghavendra KT:
> >> Was able to test the patch, here is the result: I have not tested with
> >> bigger VMs though. Results make it difficult to talk about any side
> >> effect of
> >> patch if any.
> >
> > Th
On 11/28/2014 04:28 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 11:08 schrieb Raghavendra KT:
Was able to test the patch, here is the result: I have not tested with
bigger VMs though. Results make it difficult to talk about any side
effect of
patch if any.
Thanks a log.
If our assumptio
Am 28.11.2014 um 11:08 schrieb Raghavendra KT:
> Was able to test the patch, here is the result: I have not tested with
> bigger VMs though. Results make it difficult to talk about any side
> effect of
> patch if any.
Thanks a log.
If our assumption is correct, then this patch should have no side
Was able to test the patch, here is the result: I have not tested with
bigger VMs though. Results make it difficult to talk about any side
effect of
patch if any.
System 16 core 32cpu (+ht) sandybridge
with 4 guests of 16vcpu each
+---+---+---++---+
Am 26.11.2014 um 10:23 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
>> This change is a trade-off.
>> PRO: This patch would improve the case of preemption on s390. This is
>> probably a corner case as most distros have preemption off anyway.
>> CON: The downside is that kvm_vcpu_yield_to is called also from
>> kvm
> This change is a trade-off.
> PRO: This patch would improve the case of preemption on s390. This is
> probably a corner case as most distros have preemption off anyway.
> CON: The downside is that kvm_vcpu_yield_to is called also from
> kvm_vcpu_on_spin. Here we want to avoid the scheduler over
Am 25.11.2014 um 17:04 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
> As some architectures (e.g. s390) can't disable preemption while
> entering/leaving the guest, they won't receive the yield in all situations.
>
> kvm_enter_guest() has to be called with preemption_disabled and will set
> PF_VCPU. After that poin
10 matches
Mail list logo
