RE: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Scheduler work, part 1: High-level goals and interface.

[Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >Possibly having two modes of operation would be good thing:
> >
> > 1. explicitly present HT to guests and gang schedule threads
> >
> > 2. normal free-for-all with HT aware accounting.
> >
> >Of course, #1 isn't optimal if guests may migrate between HT
> >and non-HT systems.
> 
> what do you mean by 'free-for-all'?

Same as today, i.e. we don't gang schedule and all threads are available for 
running VCPUs. 

I think it's reasonable to have two different modes of operation. For some 
CPU-intensive server virtualization-type workloads the admin basically wants to 
partition the machine. In this situation it's reasonable to expose the physical 
topology to guests (not just hyperthreads, but potentially cores/sockets/nodes 
and all the gory SLIT/SRAT tables stuff too). 

For more general virtualization workloads where the total number of VCPUs is 
rather greater than the number of physical CPUs then the current behaviour is 
preferable. HT aware accounting will mean that VCPUs that run concurrently on 
the same core will be charged less than the full period they are scheduled for.

Thanks,
Ian




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