From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [RFC] Scheduler work, part 1: High-level goals and interface. Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:34:45 -0700 Message-ID: <49DF8335.7030501@goop.org> References: <49DE415F.3060002@goop.org> <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD61036A60D@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <49DF708F.6070102@goop.org> <4FA716B1526C7C4DB0375C6DADBC4EA34172EC1C9C@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FA716B1526C7C4DB0375C6DADBC4EA34172EC1C9C@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Pratt Cc: George Dunlap , "Tian, Kevin" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Pratt wrote: > 1. explicitly present HT to guests and gang schedule threads > > 2. normal free-for-all with HT aware accounting. > > Of course, #1 isn't optimal if guests may migrate between HT and non-HT systems. > Well, we could extend vcpu hotplug to deal with those kinds of cpu topology changes, but I guess that doesn't help most Windows/hvm guests. But I think if those vcpus stop being siblings, I don't think it would hurt if we stopped gang scheduling them, so long as they're kept close (same package, I guess). J