Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 21/24] ARM: vITS: handle INVALL command

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 23:24 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> I really think we should make the vCPU migration much simpler (e.g
> avoid 
> this big loop over interrupt). In fine, if we really expect the 
> scheduler to migrate the vCPU on a different pCPU. We should also
> expect 
> receiving the interrupt on the wrong pCPU may not happen often.
> 
This makes sense to me, but as I said, I don't really know. I mean, I
understand what you're explaining but I didn't consider this before,
and I don't have any performance figure.

I hope I manage to explain that, if we want to take this into account
during migration, as Stefano was asking about, there's a way to do that
in Credit2. That's it. I'll be happy to help dealing with whatever you
withing yourselves decide it's best for ARM, if it has scheduling
implications. :-)

And while we're here, if considering this specific aspect is not a good
idea, but you (anyone!) have in mind other things that it could be
interesting to take into account when evaluating whether or not to
migrate a vCPU, I'd be interested to know that.

After all, the advantage of having our own scheduler (e.g., wrt KVM
that has to use the Linux one), is exactly this, i.e., that we can
focus a lot more on virtualization specific aspects. So, really, I'm
all ears. :-D

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel