Re: [PATCH][RFC] kvm-scheduler integration

[Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com> wrote:
>
>   
> > > > Won't that increase task_struct (16 bytes on 64-bit) unnecessarily?  
> > > > The function pointers are common to all virtual machines.
> > > >         
> > > well, this function pointer could then be reused by other virtual 
> > > machines as well, couldnt it?
> > >       
> > I don't get this.  If we add a couple of members to task_struct, it 
> > can't be reused.  The values will be the same across all tasks, but 
> > the memory will be gone (including tasks which aren't virtual 
> > machines).
> >     
>
> i mean, the function pointer is set by KVM, but it could be set to a 
> different value by other hypervisors.
>
> but ... no strong feelings either way, your patch is certainly fine.
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>
> 	Ingo
>   

How do you feel about some variant of this going into 2.6.23-rc1?  I 
initially thought of this as a 2.6.24 thing, but as it now looks solid, 
maybe we can hurry things along.

If Shaohua ports his spinlock->mutex convertion to the sched branch, we 
get some real benefits:

- reduced latencies for desktop users
- less kvm patches to carry in -rt (maybe none?)


--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/