>From: George Dunlap
>Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 8:56 PM
>
>Hmm, I think this patch may not be exactly what we want. It looks
>like it checks for how long a vcpu has been in its current stat, not
>how recently it has been running. So if a vcpu sleeps for a long time
>on a cpu that's running other workloads, then wakes up
>(blocked->runnable), the cache is by no means "hot". But since it has
>only been in the "runnable" state for a few hundred cycles, it won't
>be migrated, even though there's little cost.
Then to add a per-vcpu last_running_timestamp which is recorded when
vcpu is scheduled out, could hit the purpose here?
>
>However, if the pcpu was idle since the last time this vcpu ran (i.e.,
>if we're just catching the vcpu in the process of waking up), the
>cache *is* still hot. Hmm....
>
If peer pcpu is idle, shouldn't it be skipped by load balancer running on
another pcpu, which is out of the cache-hot logic?
Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home