On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My apologies for the slow reply.
On (20/08/17 13:25), Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> It really isn't the same thing at all. You are exposing PV spinlocks,
> while Sergey exposes preemption to vcpus.
>
Correct, we see vcpu preemption as a "fundamental" feature, with
consequences that affect scheduling, which is a core feature :)
Marc, is there anything in particular that you dislike about this RFC
patch set? Joel has some ideas, which we may discuss offline if that
works for you.
Hi Marc, Sergey, Just checking what is the latest on this series?
About the idea me and Sergey discussed, at a high level we discussed
being able to share information similar to "Is the vCPU preempted?"
using a more arch-independent infrastructure. I do not believe this
needs to be arch-specific. Maybe the speciifc mechanism about how to
share a page of information needs to be arch-specific, but the actual
information shared need not be.
This could open the door to sharing
more such information in an arch-independent way (for example, if the
scheduler needs to know other information such as the capacity of the
CPU that the vCPU is on).