On 12/03/2010 12:29 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:09:01PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I don't see how that is going to help get the lock
>> released, when the VCPU holding the lock is on another
>> CPU.
>
> Even the directed yield() is not guaranteed to get the lock released, given its
> shooting in the dark?

True, that's a fair point.

quoted text
> Anyway, the intention of yield() proposed was not to get lock released
> immediately (which will happen eventually), but rather to avoid inefficiency
> associated with (long) spinning and at the same time make sure we are not
> leaking our bandwidth to other guests because of a naive yield ..

A KVM guest can run on the host alongside short-lived
processes, though.  How can we ensure that a VCPU that
donates time gets it back again later, when the task
time was donated to may no longer exist?

-- 
All rights reversed
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/