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] planned csched improvements?

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] planned csched improvements?
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:32:03 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:34:19 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4AD2F68F020000780001934B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <4ACF6A8F02000078000190E2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD6337162CB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AD2F68F020000780001934B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcpLDYKOpa5FIcClRC+rPt85j+ItAwAAGMRg
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] planned csched improvements?
>From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: 2009年10月12日 15:28
>
>>>> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> 10.10.09 10:03 >>>
>>>From: Jan Beulich
>>>On a lightly loaded many-core non-hyperthreaded system (e.g. a single
>>>CPU bound process in one VM, and only some background load 
>elsewhere),
>>>I see this CPU bound vCPU permanently switch between 
>sockets, which is
>>>a result of csched_cpu_pick() eagerly moving vCPU-s to "more idle"
>>>sockets. It would seem that some minimal latency 
>consideration might be
>>>useful to get added here, so that a very brief interruption 
>by another
>>>vCPU doesn't result in unnecessary migration.
>>
>>there's a migration delay (default is 1ms) to judge cache hotness and
>>thus avoid unnecessary migration. However so far it's only checked 
>>when one cpu wants to steal vcpus from other runqueue. Possibly it
>>makes sense to add this check to csched_vcpu_acct, as a cold cache
>>and cascade of other VCPU migrations could easily beat benefit on a 
>>"more idle" socket.
>
>Where do you see this 1ms delay - I can't seem to spot it...
>

Sorry, that's default value in my memory. However taking a look at
code doesn't give it.

/*
 * Delay, in microseconds, between migrations of a VCPU between PCPUs.
 * This prevents rapid fluttering of a VCPU between CPUs, and reduces the
 * implicit overheads such as cache-warming. 1ms (1000) has been measured
 * as a good value.
 */
static unsigned int vcpu_migration_delay;
integer_param("vcpu_migration_delay", vcpu_migration_delay);

It's just the comment saying that. You may try to add that boot option 
for a try. :-)

Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel