On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 19:09 +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 11:55:55AM -0600, Chong Li wrote: > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&prv->lock, flags); > > + svc = rt_vcpu(d->vcpu[local_sched.vcpuid]); > > + svc->period = period; > > + svc->budget = budget; > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prv->lock, flags); > > + > And this locking pattern seems sub-optimal. You might be able to move > the lock and unlock outside the while loop? > Yes, unless I'm missing something, that looks possible to me, and would save a lot of acquire/release ping pong on the lock.
And yet, I'm not sure doing (for large guests) batches of 64 iterations with (as of now) interrupts disabled. I'll think about this... Thanks and Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
