Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2012-03-31 09:37:45]:

> The issue is with ticketlocks though. VCPUs could go into a spin w/o
> a lock being held by anybody. Say VCPUs 1-99 try to grab a lock in
> that order (on a host with one cpu). VCPU1 wins (after VCPU0 releases it)
> and releases the lock. VCPU1 is next eligible to take the lock. If 

Sorry I meant to say "VCPU2 is next eligible ..."

> that is not scheduled early enough by host, then remaining vcpus would keep 
> spinning (even though lock is technically not held by anybody) w/o making 
> forward progress.
> 
> In that situation, what we really need is for the guest to hint to host
> scheduler to schedule VCPU1 early (via yield_to or something similar). 

s/VCPU1/VCPU2 ..

- vatsa

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization