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    [W:0.029 / U:32.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site