| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen
|
To: |
"Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Haitao Shan" <maillists.shan@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen |
|
From: |
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:04:24 +0800 |
|
Cc: |
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:05:06 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<C4EFC483.1D197%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<D470B4E54465E3469E2ABBC5AFAC390F024D97B8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C4EFC483.1D197%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Thread-index: |
AckUfmQ24tRMYhhpRsGES1HI8UlxdAAHr3OHAAABVNA= |
|
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen |
>From: Keir Fraser
>Sent: 2008年9月12日 14:02
>To: Tian, Kevin; Shan, Haitao; Haitao Shan
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wei, Gang
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline
>support in Xen
>
>On 12/9/08 03:22, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I consider this might be a nice win for possibly less effort than is
>> being
>>> expended in trying to make idle residency times (and hence Cx
>> residency
>>> times) as long as possible.
>>>
>>
>> These two don't conflict. Cpu online/offline can't be used in small
>> interval due
>> to long latency and added overhead to whole system, but it
>makes sense
>> when administrator realizes low cpu utilization in a relatively long
>> period like
>> in hrs. Current idle governor instead runs in fine-grained
>level to fit
>> the otherwise
>> cases.
>
>I certainly agree with that. Just pointing out that, with the
>fine-graiend
>approach, beyond a certain point you'll be investing effort
>for smaller and
>smaller further gains.
>
Sure I agree, and beyond that point a weak-designed governor
may even slow system with no actual gain.
Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home