WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] fair scheduling

To: "Atsushi SAKAI" <sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] fair scheduling
From: "pradeep singh rautela" <rautelap@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:12:17 +0530
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Harry Smith <harry.smith272@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 09 May 2007 22:40:40 -0700
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HMiV/13njQkJzKrxsJ/3jNXUOfd3NIHg5/IiTZtF/aJQtA/Toy8H3KWQ1FjS3CaYsJ7YowZxstwFEYiSAyvndpfszWBeXYf8zSxACE89fOBvq1FHhW6JTmQrgnJ72yoCEkE4zrfV21c+8XEdXrI4HAMoKoNSY+TZul3AsMetG8k=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=PCEBaWYqq6fX4++9wQVss8vsZAT5fT4yiJ36whOETD2aoILjaeGIyoEtyfNPTQJKL2sPriEE4UWekn0kZYJfxxbebsEJeXrEo6P56zYM63QxI5JAk7J6Co7KCm/cXUWYY7N8+azxuB1ociaNvJ2IkX6TddAsvCrO1vvb7IOIrT8=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200705100532.l4A5WdGm012455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <6bc632150705092228r68448551sb770e0c26f962404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200705100532.l4A5WdGm012455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


On 5/10/07, Atsushi SAKAI <sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One vcpu can use one pcpu at one time.
It means 100% is maxium for one vcpu domain.
If you want to use cpu resources, you should set more vcpu.

Ok, this explains a lot of things.
As i understand this , more VCPUs means more freedom to hypervisor to migrate them among physical CPUs, depending on the free PCPUs available.

In general

                domU1
               /      |       \
        vcpu1 vcpu2 vcpu3
   
pcpu1 pcpu2 pcpu3 pcpu4 pcpu5 pcpu6

I mean ,domU1 can run on any vcpu , right? now vcpu1, vcpu2, vcpu3 share a one to many reationship between pcpus[1....6]. That is a vcpu can run on any of the pcus available to the Xen hypervisor(unless i explicitly pin it to ).

Is my naive understanding of what you explained is correct?

Thank you
~psr
Thanks
Atsushi SAKAI


"pradeep singh rautela" <rautelap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Atsushi,
>
> On 5/10/07, Atsushi SAKAI < sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You should show detail configuration.
> > Your information is too short.
> >
> > Anyway I guess each domain has one vcpu.
> > If so, this is normal behavior.
> > Because one vcpu cannot allocate two or more pcpu at once.
>
>
> Right, but shouldn't Xen hypervisor be capable of migrating the VCPU among
> the available PCPUs on a multiprocessor system, like in this case? And
> criteria should be the load on the PCPU or the idle PCPUs.
> yes/no?
>
> Am i missing something here?
>
> Thanks
> ~psr
>
> Thanks
> > Atsushi SAKAI
> >
> > "Harry Smith" <harry.smith272@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > hi all,
> > >
> > > I am using xen3.0.3 on dual core hyperthreaded processor (in all 4
> > cores).
> > > There are 2 VMs vm1,vm2 among which vm1 has a webserver running on it.
> > >
> > > While testing the performance of webserver, when I introduce some load
> > on
> > > vm2 which involves some computations the webserver performance goes
> > down.
> > > This happened even in the case where CPU usage by both of vm1,vm2 is
> > > restricted to 100% each.
> > >
> > > Is it expected behavior ?  if yes then how does one can control addition
> > of
> > > new virtual machines as adding every new VM will result in lowering
> > > performance of other VMs.  Through scheduling parameters we can just
> > specify
> > > amount of CPU to be used in relative sense (weight) & upper limit (cap).
> > But
> > > how to tackle this point.
> > >
> > > I am new in this area & wanna set up a lab using virtualization, so want
> > to
> > > find solution for this.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > we always have a choice...
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> pradeep singh rautela
>
> "Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration" - not me :)





--
---
pradeep singh rautela

"Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration" - not me :)
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>