Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function

[Rik van Riel]

On 12/03/2010 04:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 19:40 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 07:36:07PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:03:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > No, because they do receive service (they spend some time spinning
> > > > before being interrupted), so the respective vruntimes will increase, at
> > > > some point they'll pass B0 and it'll get scheduled.
> > >
> > > Is that sufficient to ensure that B0 receives its fair share (1/3 cpu in this
> > > case)?
> >
> > Hmm perhaps yes, althought at cost of tons of context switches, which would be
> > nice to minimize on?
>
> Don't care, as long as the guys calling yield_to() pay for that time its
> their problem.

Also, the context switches are cheaper than spinning
entire time slices on spinlocks we're not going to get
(because the VCPU holding the lock is not running).

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