RE: [Xen-devel] Fwd: Xen scheduler

["Apparao, Padmashree K" <padmashree.k.apparao@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually I have noticed that Dom0 gets a default of 20 15 0 0 0 while
domu's gets 100 0 0 1 0.

Also even if dom0 is lightly loaded it looks like it does not relinquish
the cpu

Try giving a fair share of the cpu to dom0 and U by setting the weights
equal. That works

- Padma


-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ky
Srinivasan
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:43 PM
To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] Fwd: Xen scheduler

I had sent the following email to Kier and Ian earlier today. I think
this issue is important enough to have a wider discussion on this
topic.
K. Y

>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at  3:23 PM, in message
<4492CD25.E57C.0030.0@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Ky Srinivasan wrote: 
> Kier, 
> 
> In trying to narrow down the cause for domu's timeout problems, it
looks 
> like we have a more serious problem in the xen scheduler. If you have
active 
> load on dom0, all other domains get severely starved. A simple way to
see 
> this is to have a process in an infinite loop on dom0 (for best
results have 
> as many instances of this process running as the number of physical
CPUs on 
> the box). With this load on dom0, all other domains will get little
or no cpu 
> time. 
> 
> Looking at the sedf code, it looks like the default values do give a
lot of 
> preference to dom0. What is the implication of setting domu's
scheduling 
> parameters comparable to what dom0 gets. When I set domu's period and
slice 
> values to what dom0 has, domu is getting a reasonable share of the
CPU.  
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> K. Y
> 


_______________________________________________
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