Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:58:41 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     yezengruan <yezengruan@huawei.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        will@kernel.org, joelaf@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        suleiman@google.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        "Wanghaibin (D)" <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] arm64:kvm: teach guest sched that VCPUs can be
 preempted
Message-ID: <20200911085841.GB562@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20200721041742.197354-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20200817020310.GA1210848@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <fe72592c-c721-bece-1469-95eebf931299@huawei.com>
 <cbcfb402b7fdb8a2a45b80fbb0e79f3e@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cbcfb402b7fdb8a2a45b80fbb0e79f3e@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

My apologies for the slow reply.

On (20/08/17 13:25), Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> It really isn't the same thing at all. You are exposing PV spinlocks,
> while Sergey exposes preemption to vcpus.
>

Correct, we see vcpu preemption as a "fundamental" feature, with
consequences that affect scheduling, which is a core feature :)

Marc, is there anything in particular that you dislike about this RFC
patch set? Joel has some ideas, which we may discuss offline if that
works for you.

	-ss