Hi George,
I tested xen-unstable (changeset: 20128) and linux-2.6.18-xen
(changeset: 931) with the following cases.
debit-accounted-only.diff doesn't fix the problem.
I will send a trace data file to only you because the size of
the file is big.
Case1 : With debit-accounted-only.diff, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:256
| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up |
| | | times[sec] |
+-------+---------+------------+
| 1 | 0 | 57 |
| 1 | 50 | 80 |
| 1 | 100 | 56 |
| 2 | 0 | 51 |
| 2 | 50 | 93 |
| 2 | 100 | 62 |
| 2 | 150 | 54 |
| 2 | 200 | 50 |
Case2 : With debit-accounted-only.diff, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:512
| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up |
| | | times[sec] |
+-------+---------+------------+
| 1 | 0 | 57 |
| 1 | 50 | 725 | Slow!!
| 1 | 100 | 57 |
| 2 | 0 | 51 |
| 2 | 50 | 1,000 over | I gave up the measurement.
| 2 | 100 | 784 | Slow!!
| 2 | 150 | 567 | Slow!!
| 2 | 200 | 51 |
Case3 : No patch, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:256
| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up |
| | | times[sec] |
+-------+---------+------------+
| 1 | 0 | 57 |
| 1 | 50 | 80 |
| 1 | 100 | 57 |
| 2 | 0 | 50 |
| 2 | 50 | 95 |
| 2 | 100 | 61 |
| 2 | 150 | 53 |
| 2 | 200 | 50 |
Case4 : No patch, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:512
| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up |
| | | times[sec] |
+-------+---------+------------+
| 1 | 0 | 57 |
| 1 | 50 | 575 | Slow!!
| 1 | 100 | 57 |
| 2 | 0 | 50 |
| 2 | 50 | 594 | Slow!!
| 2 | 100 | 450 | Slow!!
| 2 | 150 | 290 | Slow!!
| 2 | 200 | 51 |
Case5 : Without changeset 20122, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:256
| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up |
| | | times[sec] |
+-------+---------+------------+
| 1 | 0 | 57 |
| 1 | 50 | 80 |
| 1 | 100 | 56 |
| 2 | 0 | 50 |
| 2 | 50 | 95 |
| 2 | 100 | 61 |
| 2 | 150 | 53 |
| 2 | 200 | 50 |
Case6 : Without changeset 20122, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:512
| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up |
| | | times[sec] |
+-------+---------+------------+
| 1 | 0 | 56 |
| 1 | 50 | 80 |
| 1 | 100 | 56 |
| 2 | 0 | 50 |
| 2 | 50 | 95 |
| 2 | 100 | 61 |
| 2 | 150 | 53 |
| 2 | 200 | 50 |
Best regards,
Kan
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:41:39 +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>Hi George,
>
>I will try them on today.
>
> Kan
>
>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:10:47 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>>Hmm, it appears my patch still debits credits for VMs that aren't
>>earning credits anymore; such VMs can earn an unlimited amount of
>>negative credit before becoming active again.
>>
>>Try the attached patches; if it doesn't fix the problem, please take a
>>short trace during boot using the following command and send it to me:
>>
>># xentrace -D -e 0x2f000 -S 128 -s 1000 /tmp/sched-boot.trace
>>
>>Thanks,
>> -George
>>
>>On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Keir Fraser<keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>> Hi Maskai,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report. It's a good idea to Cc the patch author when making
>>> bug reports. In this case it's George Dunlap who I've cc'ed in this reply.
>>>
>>> -- Keir
>>>
>>> On 31/08/2009 07:50, "Masaki Kanno" <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I tested the latest xen-unstable (changeset: 20128) and the latest
>>>> linux-2.6.18-xen (changeset: 931). A guest OS is booted up slower
>>>> than before. And the following messages are shown by the guest OS.
>>>>
>>>> Switching to new root and running init.
>>>> unmounting old /dev
>>>> unmounting old /proc
>>>> unmounting old /sys
>>>>
>>>> ***************************************************************
>>>> ***************************************************************
>>>> ** WARNING: Currently emulating unsupported memory accesses **
>>>> ** in /lib/tls glibc libraries. The emulation is **
>>>> ** slow. To ensure full performance you should **
>>>> ** install a 'xen-friendly' (nosegneg) version of **
>>>> ** the library, or disable tls support by executing **
>>>> ** the following as root: **
>>>> ** mv /lib/tls /lib/tls.disabled **
>>>> ** Offending process: modprobe (pid=761) **
>>>> ***************************************************************
>>>> ***************************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Pausing... 5<3>BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
>>>> [<c0151205>] softlockup_tick+0xa5/0xd0
>>>> [<c010978a>] timer_interrupt+0x2fa/0x6c0
>>>> [<c011d8c1>] __activate_task+0x21/0x40
>>>> [<c012fed0>] lock_timer_base+0x20/0x50
>>>> [<c0151563>] handle_IRQ_event+0x33/0xa0
>>>> [<c0151678>] __do_IRQ+0xa8/0x120
>>>> [<c01076e1>] do_IRQ+0x31/0x80
>>>> [<c02af6b0>] neigh_periodic_timer+0x0/0x140
>>>> [<c024ced5>] evtchn_do_upcall+0xe5/0x1f0
>>>> [<c0115fb0>] do_fixup_4gb_segment+0x0/0x170
>>>> [<c0105ba3>] hypervisor_callback+0x33/0x3b
>>>> [<c0115fb0>] do_fixup_4gb_segment+0x0/0x170
>>>> [<c01ed68b>] delay_tsc+0xb/0x20
>>>> [<c01ed6d6>] __delay+0x6/0x10
>>>> [<c01160f0>] do_fixup_4gb_segment+0x140/0x170
>>>> [<c0169597>] do_munmap+0x197/0x200
>>>> [<c01ee0a4>] copy_to_user+0x34/0x70
>>>> [<c0105b6b>] error_code+0x2b/0x30
>>>> Continuing...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FYI, when I reverted changeset 20122 of xen-unstable, the guest OS
>>>> is booted up as before.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Kan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>
>>
>>-------------------------------text/plain-------------------------------
>>_______________________________________________
>>Xen-devel mailing list
>>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home