On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:07:13 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosa...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote: > > In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed > > after some time. > > > > For vcpus that were running an IPI is sent. In case, it went to sleep > > between this, we will be doing flush_on_enter(harmless). But as a > > flush IPI was already sent, that will be processed in ipi handler, > > this might result into something undesireable, i.e. It might clear the > > flush_mask of a new request. > > > > So after sending an IPI and waiting for a while, do a halt and wait > > for a kick from the last vcpu. > > > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <va...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Nikunj A. Dadhania <nik...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Again, was it determined that this is necessary from data of > benchmarking on the in-guest-mode/out-guest-mode patch? > No, this is more of a fix wrt algo.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
