From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
To: "Yu-An(Victor) Chen" <chen116@usc.edu>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: xen 4.5.0 rtds scheduler perform poorly with 2vms
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:15:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1448410554.7833.119.camel@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANwucLm8BjWy_J3ZtQPXdBLCH4s3Mp55UNUhS4=ssbgQNcK+_g@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2140 bytes --]
On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 07:42 -0800, Yu-An(Victor) Chen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hello,
> So I was doing some experiments to evaluate RTDS scheduler
> schedubility of real time tasks using 1vm with period of 10000 and
> budget of 10000. The experiment results turn out as expected(perform
> better than xen-credit).
>
> But when I tried to perform similar experiments with 2 vms (both with
> now period of 10000 and budget of 5000). The schedubility of real
> time tasks turn out really bad. Even if I have one vm idling and the
> other vm running the real time tasks, the schedubility of that vm is
> still really poor(worse than xen-credit). Am I missing some
> configuration I should have set for 2vm cases? Thank you
>
What is it that you are trying to prove with this setup? This is
despite all Meng is already saying about the non-work conserving nature
of RTDS, and about the LITMUS IPI bug.
In fact, in general, real-time schedulers are really good at isolating
workloads, with precise time guarantees. If you have stuff that needs
to be done in 2 VMs, and you use RTDS for scheduling the 2 VMs, you'll
get good and precisely characterized isolation between them.
But if you put all the stuff in only 1 VM, and then limit its own
utilization, all you are doing is making it hard for the things inside
the VM itself to achieve their target performance, with respect to both
an instance of RTDS where that VM has 100% utilization, as well as with
(almost) any general purpose scheduler.
Then, again, as Meng is saying, if you not only have "stuff" to do
inside the VM, but you are interested in in-guest real-time, then the
scheduling parameters of the VM(s) and the ones of the tasks in the
guest(s), should be set according to a proper real-time hierarchical
scheduling scheme that allows for guarantees to be met.
Regards,
Dario
--
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.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: 181 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-25 0:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-23 15:42 xen 4.5.0 rtds scheduler perform poorly with 2vms Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-11-23 16:07 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-23 16:35 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-11-24 2:23 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-24 4:57 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-11-24 6:19 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-25 0:15 ` Dario Faggioli [this message]
2015-11-27 16:36 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-11-27 17:23 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-11-27 17:41 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-27 19:50 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-11-28 0:17 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-28 12:20 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-11-28 15:09 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-29 12:46 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-11-29 15:38 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-29 16:27 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-11-29 16:44 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-29 18:16 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-12-01 8:59 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-12-01 10:11 ` Lars Kurth
2015-12-01 16:01 ` Yu-An(Victor) Chen
2015-12-02 5:54 ` Meng Xu
2015-12-02 10:54 ` Wei Liu
2015-12-02 11:01 ` Ian Campbell
2015-12-02 11:27 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-12-02 11:03 ` Lars Kurth
2015-12-02 11:19 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-12-02 16:57 ` Meng Xu
2015-11-29 16:18 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-11-29 16:21 ` Meng Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1448410554.7833.119.camel@citrix.com \
--to=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
--cc=chen116@usc.edu \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.