lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-04 14:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans