From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755317Ab2IUNWs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:22:48 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26404 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754321Ab2IUNWq (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:22:46 -0400
Message-ID: <505C6A1B.5050001@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:22:35 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@cs.pitt.edu>,
        chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
        "Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
        Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] kvm: Be courteous to other VMs in overcommitted
 scenario in PLE handler
References: <20120921115942.27611.67488.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120921120019.27611.66093.sendpatchset@codeblue>
In-Reply-To: <20120921120019.27611.66093.sendpatchset@codeblue>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/21/2012 08:00 AM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> When PLE handler fails to find a better candidate to yield_to, it
> goes back and does spin again. This is acceptable when we do not
> have overcommit.
> But in overcommitted scenarios (especially when we have large
> number of small guests), it is better to yield.
>
> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>

-- 
All rights reversed