On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:37:17 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (They don't leave for no reason; they leave when they're told they can
> take the lock next.)
> I don't see why the guest should micromanage Xen's scheduler
> decisions. If a VCPU is waiting for another VCPU and can put itself
> to sleep in the meantime, then its up to Xen to take advantage of
> that newly freed PCPU to schedule something. It may decide to run
> something in your domain that's runnable, or it may decide to run
> something else. There's no reason why the spinlock holder is the
> best VCPU to run overall, or even the best VCPU in your domain.
> My view is you should just put any VCPU which has nothing to do to
> sleep, and let Xen sort out the scheduling of the remainder.
Agree for the most part. But if we can spare the cost of a vcpu coming
on a cpu, realizing it has nothing to do and putting itself to sleep, by a
simple solution, we've just saved cycles. Often we are looking for tiny
gains in the benchmarks against competition.
Yes we don't want to micromanage xen's schedular. But if a guest knows
something that the schedular does not, and has no way of knowing it,
then it would be nice to be able to exploit that. I didn't think a vcpu
telling xen that it's not making forward progress was intrusive.
Another approach, perhaps better, is a hypercall that allows to temporarily
boost a vcpu's priority. What do you guys think about that? This would
be akin to a system call allowing a process to boost priority. Or
some kernels, where a thread holding a lock gets a temporary bump in
the priority because a waitor tells the kernel to.
> I'm not sure I understand this point. If you're pinning vcpus to
> pcpus, then presumably you're not going to share a pcpu among many,
> or any vcpus, so the lock holder will be able to run any time it
> wants. And a directed yield will only help if the lock waiter is
> sharing the same pcpu as the lock holder, so it can hand over its
> timeslice (since making the directed yield preempt something already
> running in order to run your target vcpu seems rude and ripe for
No, if a customer licences 4 cpus, and runs a guest with 12 vcpus.
You now have 12 vcpus confined to the 4 physical.
> Presumably the number of pcpus are also going up, so the amount of
> per-pcpu overcommit is about the same.
Unless the vcpus's are going up faster than pcpus :)....
Xen-devel mailing list