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] planned csched improvements?

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] planned csched improvements?
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:03:11 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc:
Delivery-date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:04:33 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4ACF6A8F02000078000190E2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <4ACF6A8F02000078000190E2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcpI8Fdml7hdtJ5ITeKiMIIjKpQ3swAjo+yw
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] planned csched improvements?
>From: Jan Beulich
>Sent: 2009年10月9日 22:54
>
>After the original announcement of plans to do some work on 
>csched there
>wasn't much activity, so I'd like to ask about some 
>observations that I made
>with the current implementation and whether it would be expected that
>those planned changes would take care of them.
>
>On a lightly loaded many-core non-hyperthreaded system (e.g. a single
>CPU bound process in one VM, and only some background load elsewhere),
>I see this CPU bound vCPU permanently switch between sockets, which is
>a result of csched_cpu_pick() eagerly moving vCPU-s to "more idle"
>sockets. It would seem that some minimal latency consideration might be
>useful to get added here, so that a very brief interruption by another
>vCPU doesn't result in unnecessary migration.

there's a migration delay (default is 1ms) to judge cache hotness and
thus avoid unnecessary migration. However so far it's only checked 
when one cpu wants to steal vcpus from other runqueue. Possibly it
makes sense to add this check to csched_vcpu_acct, as a cold cache
and cascade of other VCPU migrations could easily beat benefit on a 
"more idle" socket.

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