RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Yield to VCPU hcall, spinlock yielding

[Orran Y Krieger <okrieg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote on 06/08/2005 05:29:21 PM:
> > I'd view your "cpu_power" proposal as orthogonal to
(or 
> > perhaps complementary to) our ideas on preemption 
> > notification.  It's aimed more at load-balancing and fair
> > scheduling than specifically at the problems that arise with
> > the preemption of lock holders.  On the apparent CPU speed
> > issue, does Linux account in any way for different interrupt
> > loads on different processors?  Is a program just out of
luck 
> > if it happens to get scheduled on a processor with heavy 
> > interrupt traffic, or will Linux notice that it's not making
> > the same progress as its peers and shuffle things around?  It
> > seems that your cpu_power proposal might have something to 
> > contribute here. 
> 
> I don't see it as orthogonal -- I think something like it is needed
to
> make the notification scheme result in any benefit, otherwise no work
> will get migrated from the de-scheduled CPU.

I don't get it. If an application lock is important,
and all the app threads block on it except the one of the preempted processor,
and the preempted processor has two threads on it (the high priority kernel
and the app that was preempted), then we have one (or more) idle processors
and one processor with two threads.  Hopefully the scheduler is smart
enough to move the preempted thread over. So, the base scheme should result
in processors from staying idle....  A scheme like described above
would be great, but without any changes we have a scheme that keeps processors
from going idle I think.  

> I'm just not sure how easy it will be to add into the rebalance
> function.
> 
> Ian  
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel