From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NISHIGUCHI Naoki Subject: Re: [RFC] Add static priority into credit scheduler Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:03:12 +0900 Message-ID: <49CC7A30.4070202@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <49CC3C6A.6050308@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050808010103050300040909" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Su, Disheng" Cc: George Dunlap , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050808010103050300040909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Su, Disheng wrote: > Not exactly, credits still makes sense for non-RT guests, but these guests only propotionally share the rest of cpu(not used by RT guest) based on their wieght/credit. If non-RT guest is scheduled in and out, its credit is substracted as usual. It has the potential that RT guests monopolise the whole cpu, if we don't have other mechanisms to prevent that. I understand what you mean. I doubt whether the rest of cpu not used by RT guest is reflected to credit of non-RT guests. If RT guest might monopolize the whole cpu, I think the rest of cpu is nothing, therefore non-RT guests have no credit. > Thanks for your testing with the patch! > In client virtualization, with static priority, the simplest way is to set the primary guest and dom0 as the highest priority(can be different priority), other auxiliary guests as non-RT guest. I think it *should* sovle the audio/video glitch, I don't test it though. One of issues in this way is that other non-RT guests may not have enough CPU/thoughput when user is busy in primary guest(e.g playing video, copying files at the same time). > I remembered that I heard some audio glitches in some cases with your Bcredit before. Maybe static priority can be helpful but with a somewhat heavy way... > Could you kindly have a test with this configuration? As you sad, I set dom0 and HVM to RT priority(1) and tested. Regretfully, HVM does not work well. Attached file is output of "xm debug-keys r". Best regards, Naoki Nishiguchi --------------050808010103050300040909 Content-Type: text/plain; name="runqueue.log" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="runqueue.log" (XEN) Scheduler: SMP Credit Scheduler (credit) (XEN) info: (XEN) ncpus = 4 (XEN) master = 0 (XEN) credit = 1200 (XEN) credit balance = 0 (XEN) weight = 0 (XEN) runq_sort = 25322 (XEN) default-weight = 256 (XEN) msecs per tick = 10ms (XEN) credits per tick = 100 (XEN) ticks per tslice = 3 (XEN) ticks per acct = 3 (XEN) migration delay = 0us (XEN) idlers: 0000000a (XEN) active vcpus: (XEN) (XEN) active vcpus in rt dom: (XEN) 1: [3.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 2: [3.0] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=3 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 3: [3.1] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 4: [3.2] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=1 credit=300 [w=256] (XEN) 5: [0.2] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=3 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 6: [0.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=0 credit=-100 [w=256] (XEN) 7: [0.0] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 8: [0.1] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=1 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) sched_smt_power_savings: disabled (XEN) NOW=0x00000131829AAF25 (XEN) CPU[00] sort=25322, sibling=00000001, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [0.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=0 credit=-100 [w=256] (XEN) runq: (XEN) 1: [32767.0] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=0 (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: (XEN) CPU[01] sort=25322, sibling=00000002, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [32767.1] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=1 (XEN) runq: (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: (XEN) CPU[02] sort=25322, sibling=00000004, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [3.1] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) runq: (XEN) 1: [32767.2] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=2 (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: (XEN) 1: [3.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 2: [0.0] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) CPU[03] sort=25322, sibling=00000008, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [32767.3] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=3 (XEN) runq: (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: (XEN) Scheduler: SMP Credit Scheduler (credit) (XEN) info: (XEN) ncpus = 4 (XEN) master = 0 (XEN) credit = 1200 (XEN) credit balance = 0 (XEN) weight = 0 (XEN) runq_sort = 25322 (XEN) default-weight = 256 (XEN) msecs per tick = 10ms (XEN) credits per tick = 100 (XEN) ticks per tslice = 3 (XEN) ticks per acct = 3 (XEN) migration delay = 0us (XEN) idlers: 0000000a (XEN) active vcpus: (XEN) (XEN) active vcpus in rt dom: (XEN) 1: [3.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 2: [3.0] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=3 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 3: [3.1] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 4: [3.2] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=1 credit=300 [w=256] (XEN) 5: [0.2] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=3 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 6: [0.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=0 credit=-100 [w=256] (XEN) 7: [0.0] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 8: [0.1] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=1 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) sched_smt_power_savings: disabled (XEN) NOW=0x000001346A19FB21 (XEN) CPU[00] sort=25322, sibling=00000001, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [0.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=0 credit=-100 [w=256] (XEN) runq: (XEN) 1: [32767.0] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=0 (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: (XEN) CPU[01] sort=25322, sibling=00000002, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [32767.1] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=1 (XEN) runq: (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: (XEN) CPU[02] sort=25322, sibling=00000004, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [3.3] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) runq: (XEN) 1: [32767.2] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=2 (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: (XEN) 1: [3.1] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) 2: [0.0] pri=1 flags=0 cpu=2 credit=0 [w=256] (XEN) CPU[03] sort=25322, sibling=00000008, core=0000000f (XEN) run: [32767.3] pri=-64 flags=0 cpu=3 (XEN) runq: (XEN) (XEN) rt_runq: --------------050808010103050300040909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --------------050808010103050300040909--