[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 128240: regressions - FAIL

>>> On 02.10.18 at 11:24, <dfaggioli@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 09:29 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 01.10.18 at 18:07, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 
>> > We should ignore a mismatch of the scheduler. Failures when setting
>> > parameters for a matching scheduler should not be ignored IMO.
>> Well, depends on whether the scheduler was explicitly chosen.
>> I don't think migration should succeed when e.g. RTDS was used
>> and isn't available on the destination host.
> I'm not sure I'm understanding.
> You're saying, that, e.g., the migration of a VM between, for instance:
> - a Xen 4.11 host, booted without any sched=, and hence running Credit,
>   and another Xen 4.11 host, booted with sched=credit2,
> should fail _while_ :
> - a migration between a Xen 4.11 host, booted without any sched=, and 
>   hence using Credit, and a Xen 4.12 host, booted without any sched=, 
>   and hence using Credit2 (if we switch),
> should succeed ?

No. See Jürgen's response. The default scheduler (irrespective of
whether it was chosen via command line option) should not matter.
Any means to force a non-default scheduler (and it indeed looks
like CPU pools are the only way) should imo retain that specific
scheduler. But I agree that this is not the only possible / sensible
view at things.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.