Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] kvm: Handle undercommitted guest case in PLEhandler

[Takuya Yoshikawa]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:12:49 +0200
Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It will.  The tradeoff is between false-positive costs (undercommit) and
> true positive costs (overcommit).  I think undercommit should perform
> well no matter what.
> 
> If we utilize preempt notifiers to track overcommit dynamically, then we
> can vary the spin time dynamically.  Keep it long initially, as we get
> more preempted vcpus make it shorter.

What will happen if we pin each vcpu thread to some core?
I don't want to see so many vcpu threads moving around without
being pinned at all.

In that case, we don't want to make KVM do any work of searching
a vcpu thread to yield to.

Thanks,
	Takuya
--
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/