Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit,overcommit scenarios in PLE handler

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 10/03/2012 04:29 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> [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'm missing the context.  What is p_rq?

What I mean was:

  if can_yield_to_process_in_current_rq
     do that
  else if can_yield_to_process_in_other_rq
     do that
  else
     return -ESRCH


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function