>From: George Dunlap [mailto:George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:27 PM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dong, Eddie; Zhang, Xiantao
>Subject: Re: The caculation of the credit in credit_scheduler
>On 05/11/10 07:06, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
>> The reason is how the credit is caculated. Although the 3 HVM domains is
>to 2 PCPU and share the 2 CPUs, they will all get 2* 300 credit when credit
>That means the I/O intensive HVM domain will never be under credit, thus it
>preempt the CPU intensive whenever it is boost (i.e. after I/O access to
>it is set to be TS_UNDER only at the tick time, and then, boost again.
>I suspect that the real reason you're having trouble is that pinning and
>the credit mechanism don't work very well together. Instead of pinning,
>have you tried using the cpupools interface to make a 2-cpu pool to put
>the VMs into? That should allow the credit to be divided appropriately.
I have a quick look in the code, and seems the cpu pool should not help on such
situation. The CPU poll only cares about the CPUs a domain can be scheduled,
but not about the credit caculation.
Will do the experiment later.
>> I didn't try credit2, so no idea if this will happen to credit2 also.
>Credit2 may do better at dividing. However, it doesn't implement
>pinning (just ignores it). So you couldn't do your test unless you used
>cpupools, or limited cpus=2 to Xen's commandline.
>Also, credit2 isn't yet designed to handle 64 cpus yet, so it may not
>work very well on a system with 64 cores.
Xen-devel mailing list