From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Thibault Subject: Re: Re: Scheduling groups, credit scheduler support Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:08:58 +0000 Message-ID: <20071219160858.GL4217@implementation.uk.xensource.com> References: <20071204135020.GB10634@silverwood.ncultra.org> <20071214133536.GA19797@silverwood.ncultra.org> <20071214162613.GK4296@implementation.uk.xensource.com> <20071214173627.GQ4296@implementation.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071214173627.GQ4296@implementation.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Mike D. Day" , Keir Fraser , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Samuel Thibault, le Fri 14 Dec 2007 17:36:27 +0000, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault, le Fri 14 Dec 2007 16:26:13 +0000, a écrit : > > I tested groups a bit (the merge goes very fine) but couldn't see a > > difference, > > Oops, scratch that: groups operations were not working. This time I could really test it. There is no real performance difference even when dom0 is busy looping. It hence looks like the boosting feature of the credit scheduler already does a good job. However, when using the "cap" feature of the credit scheduler, there is indeed a noticeable difference: the stubdomain cpu time properly gets accounted in the HVM cpu time, and the cap does have an effect on the whole of the two. Now I guess this has to be somehow merged with the other, more instrusive, group support that got submitted to xen-devel. Samuel