WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: performance of credit2 on hybrid workload

To: David Xu <davidxu06@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: performance of credit2 on hybrid workload
From: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:31:00 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:32:23 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q5plt7HVBo5ARRMrjpgsFqJ7QWjT3ECob2jRJyJHWHs=; b=k+VVA8VDRbP9SpEZHUKGOdJo51fXBddtpfOl2uNyVG8cEhB/YdOCWCiqB3Z8tcLKFT r9qqIhnuIZAZczjVaikuQvXcK6cZHyyPa/NNWm9Y0W1IF39ES6TWbvT/J/Mp442UQ52+ FsBiSEr0RONj2NZ7xyb0P0M9JFC3VjM0gBse0=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=rsLv0F16N6hRgvLSjP6eOJAiMUkUhPrjhz0r9x40eRE9A0sP3bHe95Ney50XEYSz7h McAky7ix8Kt46Qa0FNt7ZhjxBQ2wHxbZCZ4dQ6FFzdcXfbNJz4DmH4+tDZpCgmQXuYwZ jt2k/CLe6ugnKdMLK9pNwZ4qkIaaBsP7DJIfE=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <BANLkTikU0KqN_yd1J3_HtCaAN0LrF6qBXQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <BANLkTik9+a64cm6YPgnL0sTaXbEWCqYJcA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1306340309.21026.8524.camel@elijah> <BANLkTi=57gDitoq7-T7n9Zh0_ZrCMuxfRg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1306401493.21026.8526.camel@elijah> <BANLkTikU0KqN_yd1J3_HtCaAN0LrF6qBXQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You cannot do that with the current code; to add such a parameter
would require major work to the scheduler.

 -George

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:55 AM, David Xu <davidxu06@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> I want to reduce the latency of a specific VM. How should I do based on
> credit scheduler? For example, I will add another parameter latency besides
> weight and cap, and schedule the vcpu whose VM holds the least latency
> firstly each time. Thanks.
> Regards,
> Cong
>
> 2011/5/26 George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Please reply to the list. :-)
>>
>> Also, this is a question about credit1, so it should arguably be a
>> different thread.
>>
>>  -George
>>
>> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:34 +0100, David Xu wrote:
>> > Thanks. The boost mechanism in credit can significantly reduce the
>> > scheduling latency for pure I/O workload. Since the minimum interval
>> > of credit scheduling is 10ms, the magnitude of latency for the target
>> > VM should be 10ms (except the credit is not used up and vcpu remain
>> > the head of runqueue ) as well. Why the real latency in my test (Ping
>> > the target VM) is much shorter than 10ms? Does the vcpu of target VM
>> > remain the head of runqueue if it was boosted?
>> >
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> > 2011/5/25 George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> >         On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 09:15 +0100, David Xu wrote:
>> >         > Hi,
>> >         >
>> >         >
>> >         > Xen4.1 datasheet tells that credit2 scheduler is designed
>> >         for latency
>> >         > sensitive workloads. Does it have some improvement on the
>> >         hybrid
>> >         > workload including both the cpu-bound and latency-sensitive
>> >         i/o work?
>> >         > For example, if a VM runs a cpu-bound task burning the cpu
>> >         and a
>> >         > i/o-bound (latency-sensitive) task simultaneously, will the
>> >         latency be
>> >         > guaranteed? And how?
>> >
>> >
>> >         At the moment, the "mixed workload" problem, where a single VM
>> >         does both
>> >         cpu-intensive and latency-sensitive* workloads, has not been
>> >         addressed
>> >         yet.  I have some ideas, but I haven't implemented them yet.
>> >
>> >         * i/o-bound is not the same as latency sensitive.  They
>> >         obviously go
>> >         together frequently, but I would make a distinction between
>> >         them.  For
>> >         example, an scp (copy over ssh) can easily become cpu-bound if
>> >         there is
>> >         competition for the cpu -- but it is nonetheless latency
>> >         sensitive.  (I
>> >         guess to put it another way, a workload which is
>> >         latency-sensitive may
>> >         become i/o-bound if its scheduling latency is too high.)
>> >
>> >          -George
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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