;
> if (!populated_zone(zone)) {
>diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>index 403afa6..5b27db4 100644
>--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>@@ -783,11 +783,7 @@ void __init init_cma_reserved_pageblock(struct page *page)
> set_page_refcounted(page
on pointer, maybe guarded
> by a static key, be enough? A further advantage would be that this would
> work on other architectures, too.
There is a "Adaptive halt-polling" which are merged to upstream more
than two years ago avoids to thread the critical path and has alread
c poll (halt_poll_ns=0):
> 29031.6 bit/s -- 76.1 %CPU
>
> 2. w/ patch and disable kvm dynamic poll (halt_poll_ns=0):
> 35787.7 bit/s -- 129.4 %CPU
>
> 3. w/ kvm dynamic poll:
> 35735.6 bit/s -- 200.0 %CPU
Actually we can reduce the CPU utilization by sleeping a perio
2017-11-14 16:15 GMT+08:00 Quan Xu :
>
>
> On 2017/11/14 15:12, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>
>> 2017-11-14 15:02 GMT+08:00 Quan Xu :
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote:
>
e the mechanism by themself. I remember Andi also has the concern about two
much random parameters. In addition, there is a "Adaptive halt-polling" which
are merged to upstream more than two years ago in kvm which is self-tuning,
https:
ith pSeries. So we need return false if we are runnig as
> powerNV. The another fact is that lppaca->yiled_count keeps zero on
> powerNV. So we can just skip the machine type.
Lock holder vCPU preemption can be detected by hardware pSeries o
Cc Paolo, kvm ml
2016-07-06 12:58 GMT+08:00 xinhui :
> Hi, wanpeng
>
> On 2016年07月05日 17:57, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>
>> Hi Xinhui,
>> 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui :
>>>
>>> This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks
>&
2016-07-06 15:58 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:46:34PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> > SO it's easy for ppc to implement such interface. Note that yield_count is
>> > set by powerVM/KVM.
>> > and only pSeries can run a guest for now. :)
er and mutex_spin_on_owner.
>>> These spin_on_onwer variant also cause rcu stall before we apply this patch
>>> set
>>>
>>
>> Paolo, could you help out with an (x86) KVM interface for this?
>
> If it's just for spin loops, you can check if the version
2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 06/07/2016 14:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2016-07-06 18:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xin
2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>
>
> On 06/07/2016 14:08, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2016-07-06 18:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xin
2016-07-07 17:42 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>> > Hmm, you're right. We can use bit 0 of struct kvm_steal_time's flags to
>> > indicate that pad[0] is a
2016-07-07 18:12 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li :
> 2016-07-07 17:42 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra :
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> 2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini :
>>> > Hmm, you're right. We can use bit 0 of struct kvm_steal_time
ncrease
downtime when acquire the benefit of reducing total time, maybe it
will be more acceptable if there is no downside for downtime.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
#x27;
>> perception than total time, however, this feature will increase downtime
>> when acquire the benefit of reducing total time, maybe it will be more
>> acceptable if there is no downside for downtime.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wanpeng Li
>
> In theory, there is no fac
15 matches
Mail list logo
