| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][RFC] consider vcpu-pin weight onCreditScheduler
Hi, Keir and Emmanuel
Thank you for your discussions.
It is very meaningful for me.
I try it again for simplify the code.
Anyway the reason of this kind of complex is come from.
Following 5 conditions should consider for this issue(vcpu-pin-weight).
1)Domain 1-n
2)vcpu 1-n
3)vcpu-pin 1-n
4)Each domain has weight, but it should be treated as vcpu-weight.
since each vcpu pin-map is not same for each domain.
5)Each vcpu has credit, but it is changed each time slice.
(Sometimes accounted, and othertimes are not.)
Thanks
Atsushi SAKAI
Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27/6/07 13:21, "Emmanuel Ackaouy" <ackaouy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> Which is the best way to solve?
> >
> > If you could solve the generic problem in a simpler way, I would
> > not be opposed to it. But +365 lines in what is already a fairly
> > complex accounting code path doesn't seem right to me.
> >
> > I can't even understand what weights mean when every CPU
> > has a different pin cpumask. Weights only make sense to me
> > when VMs compete for resources.
> >
> > In my opinion, adding the concept of dynamic partitioning (or
> > segmentation) of the host system would allow a bunch of people
> > to no longer have to pin their VCPUs. This is desirable.
>
> Partitioning is a very sensible simplification in many (most?) cases, but
> would need plumbing all the way up through xen-api, which is a pain. I still
> suspect that the patch could be simplified even without interface changes. I
> don't understand the need to add extra complexity on every accounting
> period.
>
> -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home