Re: Test result of xen-unstable changeset 25249

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1522 bytes --]

On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 16:28 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: 
> > It seems to me that, in such case, we will be setting the wrong set of
> > parameters anyway, independently on how well we manage in putting a
> > default in place for them... Am I missing something? If not, as I
> > haven't found any way of finding out what scheduler is actually being
> > used for a specific domain, shouldn't we add or mimic that (going
> > through cpupool, perhaps, I haven't checked yet)?
> 
> I think you are right. Should we have libxl_gfet_domain_scheduler (or
> some such) which implements the appropriate logic?
> 
If we want to keep the patch (and I'm sure we want, as having the
possibility to set scheduling parameters in the config file kills a
regression against xm, and it's a very nice feature after all :-D) I
think we should.

I can look into that if you want. I'm also trying to figure out if a
default value for the various parameters of the various scheduler can be
"elected". It doesn't look like an easy thing to do, e.g., consider sedf
wants time values for "period" and "slice", so virtually any unsigned
value is meaningful, although, yes, period=0 or slice=0 barely make
sense, and thus maybe we can use these...

Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)



[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel