On Friday 15 August 2008 13:39:45 George Dunlap wrote:
> The fact that there's different amounts of cpu time isn't evidence
> that the scheduler is unfair. The vcpus may be blocked, or may be
> coming up at different times.
> Is there a particular reason you want to run with more VCPUs than physical
Yes. You can have a virtual test/crash box for some development work, for
> Given that cpu synchronization primitives like spinlocks and IPIs were
> generally designed with the assumption that they're running on bare
> metal and are not pre-empted, it's not surprising that when vcpus are
> trying to work together but not able to run at the same time, there
> will be performance problems.
Yes, overcommitting always causes performance problems.
The thing I am observing with xentop is that the last activated VCPU
seems to be prefered over the others and the virtual BSP runs very rarely.
That is what I mean by "unfair".
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Christoph Egger
> <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Launch a HVM guest with twice as many VCPUs as physical CPUs are in the
> > machine. You will notice the guest boots slow.
> > With xentop you see, the first VCPU is rarely scheduled once the other
> > VCPUs are up in the guest.
> > If the boot process is just waiting for the first VCPU to finish
> > something (e.g. handling an interrupt), then the whole boot process
> > "freezes" until the first VCPU gets scheduled.
> > Here is an xentop line showing how unfair the VCPUs are scheduled:
> > VCPUs(sec): 0: 44s 1: 94s 2: 96s 3:
> > 140s
> > Christoph
AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany
Operating System Research Center
AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG
Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Deutschland
Registergericht Dresden: HRA 4896
AMD Saxony LLC (Sitz Wilmington, Delaware, USA)
Geschäftsführer der AMD Saxony LLC:
Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy
Xen-devel mailing list