search for: kernellwp

2016-07-07 18:12 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li <kernellwp at gmail.com>: > 2016-07-07 17:42 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>: >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> 2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: >>> > Hmm, you're right. We c...

2016-07-07 18:12 GMT+08:00 Wanpeng Li <kernellwp at gmail.com>: > 2016-07-07 17:42 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>: >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> 2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: >>> > Hmm, you're right. We c...

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: > > Hmm, you're right. We can use bit 0 of struct kvm_steal_time's flags to > > indicate that pad[0] is a "VCPU preempted" field; if pad[0] is 1, the > > VCPU has been scheduled out since the last time the guest reset the

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: > > Hmm, you're right. We can use bit 0 of struct kvm_steal_time's flags to > > indicate that pad[0] is a "VCPU preempted" field; if pad[0] is 1, the > > VCPU has been scheduled out since the last time the guest reset the

2016-07-06 15:58 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:46:34PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> > SO it's easy for ppc to implement such interface. Note that yield_count is >> > set by powerVM/KVM. >> > and only pSeries can run a guest for now. :) >> > >> > I also review x86 related code, looks like we

2016-07-06 18:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: > > > On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: >>> change fomr v1: >>> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted >>> skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro. >>>

2016-07-07 17:42 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: >> > Hmm, you're right. We can use bit 0 of struct kvm_steal_time's flags to >> > indicate that pad[0] is a "VCPU preempted" field; if pad[0]

2016-08-08 14:35 GMT+08:00 Liang Li <liang.z.li at intel.com>: > This patch set contains two parts of changes to the virtio-balloon. > > One is the change for speeding up the inflating & deflating process, > the main idea of this optimization is to use bitmap to send the page > information to host instead of the PFNs, to reduce the overhead of > virtio data

2016-07-06 15:58 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:46:34PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> > SO it's easy for ppc to implement such interface. Note that yield_count is >> > set by powerVM/KVM. >> > and only pSeries can run a guest for now. :) >> > >> > I also review x86 related code, looks like we

2016-07-06 20:28 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: > > > On 06/07/2016 14:08, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2016-07-06 18:44 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini at redhat.com>: >>> >>> >>> On 06/07/2016 08:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: >>>>> change fomr

2017-11-14 15:02 GMT+08:00 Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com>: > > > On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: >> >> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote: >>> >>> From: Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com> >>> >>> So far, pv_idle_ops.poll is the only ops for pv_idle. .poll is called >>> in idle path which will poll for a while

Cc Paolo, kvm ml 2016-07-06 12:58 GMT+08:00 xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > Hi, wanpeng > > On 2016?07?05? 17:57, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> >> Hi Xinhui, >> 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: >>> >>> This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks >>> implementation

Cc Paolo, kvm ml 2016-07-06 12:58 GMT+08:00 xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > Hi, wanpeng > > On 2016?07?05? 17:57, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> >> Hi Xinhui, >> 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: >>> >>> This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks >>> implementation

2017-11-14 16:15 GMT+08:00 Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com>: > > > On 2017/11/14 15:12, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> >> 2017-11-14 15:02 GMT+08:00 Quan Xu <quan.xu0 at gmail.com>: >>> >>> >>> On 2017/11/13 18:53, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> >>>> On 13/11/17 11:06, Quan Xu wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From:

Hi Xinhui, 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can

Hi Xinhui, 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can