This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: IDLE domain is scheduled more than dom0

To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: IDLE domain is scheduled more than dom0
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:54:32 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <571ACEFD467F7749BC50E0A98C17CDD8073C8586@pdsmsx403>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
>       Shouldn't IDLE domain not be scheduled for most time? Because
> idle task will call into PAL for power save on XEN/IA64, the performance
> is really, really bad to boot Dom0. The net effect is about ten times
> slower. After adding "sched=bvt", everything back to normal.

If the sedf scheduler is scheduling the idle domain when
domain0 is runnable, surely this is affecting performance
on x86 also and is a bug that should be fixed?

Has anyone done any performance testing (on x86) since
sedf was checked in as the default?


Xen-devel mailing list