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] Cpu pools discussion

To: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion
From: George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:47:08 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zhigang Wang <zhigang.x.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:47:34 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RbcdxjclYECnOiidhJu0Ul6TSnI4uFpb4QW3Q8mlIuA=; b=WJKIo6xOxBZviQlwiKxujgwmPbx2/VLsND9mBREtBjePGdTdE052URZ1nPCdcojgeF QJG/Pt6xZv7lTht6ai7mg/C+DcY56oJ+6sGR++zABjXRI6Vd6wblb3f2dkxYf128jtKU NK0F38Mje6F3ZgoRjw9al8WxAmjeltpe7dyEw=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=VPbvhoZFTe2u6m5BSKAPXhBO++czeP4K237Kl+bFdBph+gakv+XAbiTupNMC82lycN agMy/91xqi0g26Ud1Isfyl/eR+d5zvqHHMhbv+5WaFUOj1hYL+UPyQwvtyR/uJc0zGEE XGfSUm6gi0M1jbmsAvVnecSlYCHxTtrVOtCks=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4A6EFFA6.3000405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <de76405a0907270820gd76458cs34354a61cc410acb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A6E492D.201@xxxxxxxxxx> <20090728091929.GI5235@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A6ECFD3.4030709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <de76405a0907280550j1ff82f1dq507f0258f138c477@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090728130701.GJ5235@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A6EFC11.9010404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090728133134.GK5235@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A6EFFA6.3000405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Juergen
Gross<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think your first point is the most important one.
> It might be possible to build a load balancing scheme to shift cpus between
> pools dynamically, but this should be step 2, I think :-)
> But it would be a nice project :-)

If I recall your use case, Juergen, I thought the whole point was to
keep some set of VMs limited to just a subset of CPUs?  So the first
point is a feature for you, not a bug. :-)

If we ever do find someone who wants cpu pools, perhaps to use
different schedulers, but wants to be able to dynamically adjust pool
size, then they can work on such a project.  Until then, no point
spending time on something no one's going to use.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel