Re: schedulers and topology exposing questions

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

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 15:53 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 27/01/16 15:27, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > 
> > So Elena started looking at the CPU bound and seeing how Xen
> > behaves then
> > and if we can improve the floating situation as she saw some
> > abnormal
> > behavious.
> 
> OK -- if the focus was on the two cases where the Xen credit1
> scheduler
> (apparently) co-located two cpu-burning vcpus on sibling threads,
> then
> yeah, that's behavior we should probably try to get to the bottom of.
> 
Well, let's see the trace. 

In any case, I'm up to trying hooking the SMT load balancer in
runq_tickle (which would mean doing it upon every vcpus wakeup).

My gut feeling is that the overhead my outwieght the benefit, and that
it will actually reveal useful only in a minority of the
cases/workloads, but it's maybe worth a try.

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