Re: [0/3] DomGrp/SchedGrp Merge RFC

[Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@eu.citrix.com>]

Keir Fraser, le Wed 06 Feb 2008 09:20:51 +0000, a écrit :
> On 5/2/08 22:20, "Chris" <hap10@tycho.ncsc.mil> wrote:
> 
> > On the issue of code size, take Mike's schedgrps for example, which
> > was very small as originally posted.  After integration with domgrps,
> > it shrank to less than 40% of its original size (259 insertions down
> > from 681) and it no longer induced a domain hierarchy.
> 
> If credit-sharing is made configurable (as you would surely want it to be if
> domgrps are to have other uses) then a reasonable number of those lines of
> code will reappear, and spread across tools and hypervisor.
> 
> > But it sounds like the main objection is lack of existing use cases.
> > They're coming... slowly.  The best I can say is that I'm working to
> > identify and mitigate future challenges before they cause problems.
> > Is there critical mass for a generic group architecture yet?  I think
> > so, but the case should only get stronger with time.
> 
> I'm driven by concrete use cases. Several of the upcoming uses you mention
> need careful consideration of what they are useful for, to determine the
> best way to design them into the system. Take resource sharing. Stub domains
> sharing scheduler credits with the HVM guest is a rather special case, and
> one where a master/slave relationship is not unreasonable (and hence in this
> case I think it is arguable whether it is actually a good fit with domgrps
> after all).

Actually, in my former research team in Bordeaux, they would like to
write a small domain that computes the scheduling of a bunch of others,
for parallel scientific computing.

Samuel