From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932261Ab2JCOiB (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:38:01 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:47427 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753419Ab2JCOh7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:37:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:59:42 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T To: Avi Kivity , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Raghavendra K T , "H. Peter Anvin" , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Srikar , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , KVM , Jiannan Ouyang , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Gleb Natapov , Andrew Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenarios in PLE handler Message-ID: <20121003142942.GB15253@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Raghavendra K T References: <1348486479.11847.46.camel@twins> <50604988.2030506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1348490165.11847.58.camel@twins> <50606050.309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1348494895.11847.64.camel@twins> <50606B33.1040102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5061B437.8070300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5064101A.5070902@redhat.com> <50643745.6010202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <506440AF.9080202@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <506440AF.9080202@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) x-cbid: 12100314-5112-0000-0000-00000D097D1D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Avi Kivity [2012-09-27 14:03:59]: > On 09/27/2012 01:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > >> [...] > > 2) looking at the result (comparing A & C) , I do feel we have > > significant in iterating over vcpus (when compared to even vmexit) > > so We still would need undercommit fix sugested by PeterZ (improving by > > 140%). ? > > Looking only at the current runqueue? My worry is that it misses a lot > of cases. Maybe try the current runqueue first and then others. > Okay. Do you mean we can have something like + if (rq->nr_running == 1 && p_rq->nr_running == 1) { + yielded = -ESRCH; + goto out_irq; + } in the Peter's patch ? ( I thought lot about && or || . Both seem to have their own cons ). But that should be only when we have short term imbalance, as PeterZ told. I am experimenting all these for V2 patch. Will come back with analysis and patch. > Or were you referring to something else? >