Hi Emmanuel,
Thanks for your quick response.
I'm not familiar with scheduler, I'll study it. :-)
I put comments below, maybe it's not right. :-)
Emmanuel Ackaouy write on 2006年12月22日 0:23:
> Hi Anthony.
>
> Based on the number of "ticks" on CPU0 that occurred between the
> two stat dumps, over 16 minutes elapsed during that time.
>
> During that time, 364 regular migrations occurred. These are
> migrations that happen when an idle CPU finds a runnable VCPU queued
> elsewhere
> on the system.
>From the point of user of credit scheduler, it may be not regular migrations.
Because there are 4 CPU, and there are only 3 VCPU,
It would be unlikely that an idle CPU finds a runnable VCPU queued elsewhere
on the system.
>
> Also during that time, 530 multi-core load balancing migrations
> happened.
>
> That's about one such migration every 1.86 seconds. I'm somewhat
> surprised
> that this costs 5% in performance of your benchmark. That said, the
> point
> of this code is to balance a partially idle system and not to shuffle
> things
> around too much so I'm happy to smooth the algorithm further to reduce
> the
> number of these migrations.
I'm interested about this.
I'll investigate this.
>
> I'll send another patch shortly.
Thanks again.
>
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 4:26, Xu, Anthony wrote:
>> Before running KB
>>
>> (XEN) migrate_queued = 169
>> (XEN) migrate_running = 213
>>
>> (XEN) CPU[00] tick=117181, sort=12233, sibling=0x1, core=0x5
>>
>>
>> After running KB
>>
>> (XEN) migrate_queued = 533
>> (XEN) migrate_running = 743
>>
>> (XEN) CPU[00] tick=215790, sort=42999, sibling=0x1, core=0x5
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home