On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:23:47AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/09/2017 03:08, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 03:49:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 21/09/2017 15:32, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>> So the guest can change the scheduling decisions at the host l
On 22/09/2017 03:08, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 03:49:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 21/09/2017 15:32, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> So the guest can change the scheduling decisions at the host level?
>>> And the host HAS to follow it? There is no policy override fo
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 03:49:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/09/2017 15:32, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > So the guest can change the scheduling decisions at the host level?
> > And the host HAS to follow it? There is no policy override for the
> > host to say - nah, not going to do it
On 21/09/2017 15:32, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> So the guest can change the scheduling decisions at the host level?
> And the host HAS to follow it? There is no policy override for the
> host to say - nah, not going to do it?
>
> Also wouldn't the guest want to always be at SCHED_FIFO? [I am t
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 08:38:37AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> When executing guest vcpu-0 with FIFO:1 priority, which is necessary to
> deal with the following situation:
>
> VCPU-0 (housekeeping VCPU)VCPU-1 (realtime VCPU)
>
> raw_spin_lock(A)
> interrupted, schedule task T-1
When executing guest vcpu-0 with FIFO:1 priority, which is necessary to
deal with the following situation:
VCPU-0 (housekeeping VCPU) VCPU-1 (realtime VCPU)
raw_spin_lock(A)
interrupted, schedule task T-1 raw_spin_lock(A) (spin)
raw_spin_unlock(A)
Certain operations must
6 matches
Mail list logo
