From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zhiyuan Shao" Subject: =?gb2312?B?tPC4tDogtPC4tDogW1hlbi1kZXZlbF0gQ3JlZGl0IHNjaGVkdWxlciB2cyA=?= =?gb2312?B?U0VERiBzY2hlZHVsZXI=?= Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:08:14 +0800 Message-ID: <4a026cc6.1fd6720a.7d12.ffffdb08@mx.google.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0832239411==" 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: 'gaurav somani' Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0832239411== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C9CF14.E51628A0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C9CF14.E51628A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Believe your can use BCredit for this job. However, you can only set the attributes of a domain statically, which means the scheduler can not = adjust its behavior according to the types of the work loads.=20 =20 Remember there is some publication in proceedings of VEE 2009, which had addressed your problem. The solution continuously guests the performance characteristics of the application, and adjust the preemption decisions = of the scheduler itself. You can take a look at that, but unfortunately, = they did not provide the patch behind the solution. Besides, I am not sure = that whether such solution is really helpful to solve real problems on real hardware, since it is based its decisions on possibilities. =20 Zhiyuan =20 _____ =20 =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: gaurav somani [mailto:onlineengineer@gmail.com]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2009=C4=EA5=D4=C26=C8=D5 17:09 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Zhiyuan Shao =B3=AD=CB=CD: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: =B4=F0=B8=B4: [Xen-devel] Credit scheduler vs SEDF = scheduler =20 Hi Zhiyuan and George, Thanks for the comments. you are right i was getting spikes with more than 100ms and some times 400ms. I will be trying with the patch u suggetsed. one more aspect, can we classify schedulers according to applications = they run.? Like compute intensive on Credit and Latency intensive on sEDF or some = trade off between them (In a cluster of servers). Thanks Gaurav 2009/5/6 Zhiyuan Shao Hi, =20 Your experiment results are actually =A1=B0expected=A1=B1. There are = several reasons make the results happen.=20 =20 Firstly, Credit has long time slice (i.e., 30 millisec by default), and = this make the observed close-to 30ms RTT to happen, actually, during such = long RTT (the spike), the domain in test (domain 1 of your experiment) is = just scheduled-out (actually, I guess the spikes illustrated in your figure 1 should read higher than 30ms!). At the same time, the scheduled-in vcpus (may executing the TEST program, which is cpu-hogs), and they will not = give up their 30-ms time slice if they are not preempted.=20 =20 Secondly, as regulated by Credit scheduler, if a VCPU has no more = credits, it will not be BOOSTed even it do have some I/O requests to handle. This explains why your figure1, which has little spikes in the first 150 = second, and crowed spikes follow. Since vcpu of domain 1 simply used out their credits, and can not preempt the other running vcpus of other domains, = even they do have I/O operations to accomplish (i.e., PING).=20 =20 Lastly, compared with Credit, SEDF generally has short time slices, and = it has bigger chances to preempt current running vcpu when another vcpu = found it has some I/O operations to be accomplished. (actually, I donot = understand SEDF very well, but conclude these features by reading the trace data) =20 Actually, you can use BCredit patch to eliminate the spikes, I can = guarantee that it will work very well! :-) And I agree with George that you should = not use PING to justify whether a scheduler is good or not. =20 Best, Zhiyuan =20 =20 _____ =20 =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] =B4=FA=B1=ED gaurav = somani =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2009=C4=EA5=D4=C25=C8=D5 17:26 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com =D6=F7=CC=E2: [Xen-devel] Credit scheduler vs SEDF scheduler =20 Hi list, I am evaluating the scheduler behavior in xen. I am using Xen 3.3.0=20 Dom0 and Dom1,2,3 and 4 all are opensuse 11. I have one CPU Intensive TEST which has no. of arithmatic instruction in = an infinite while() loop. i am pinging domain1 with an external machine. and noting the RTT = values. i have below experiments time (s) domain state 0 dom0,1,2,3,4 all idle 50 dom2 TEST started 100 dom3 TEST started 150 dom4 TEST started 200 dom0 TEST started 250 dom2 TEST stopped 300 dom3 TEST stopped 350 dom4 TEST stopped 400 dom0 TEST stopped For these 400 seconds time, i have performed experiments with Credit and SEDF sceduler. the configuration is=20 Credit configuration - weight 256, cap 0 Domain VCPU=20 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 all vcpu0s are pinned to pcpu0 and vcpu1s to pcpu1. SEDF configuration - Period 10ms slice - 1.9ms Domain VCPU=20 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 all vcpu0s are pinned to pcpu0 and vcpu1s to pcpu1. the results of RTT values are attached herewith. the performance of = Credit is very bad in comparison to SEDF in this scenario. Please provide me some thought on it. Thanks and Regards Gaurav somani M.Tech (ICT) Dhribhai Ambani Institute of ICT, INDIA http://dcomp.daiict.ac.in/~gaurav =20 --=20 Gaurav somani M.Tech (ICT) Dhribhai Ambani Institute of ICT, Gandhinagar Gujarat, INDIA onlineengineer@ieee.org gaurav_somani@daiict.ac.in http://dcomp.daiict.ac.in/~gaurav http://www.linkedin.com/in/gauravsomani ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C9CF14.E51628A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Believe your can = use BCredit for this job. However, you can only set the attributes of a = domain statically, which means the scheduler can not adjust its behavior = according to the types of the work loads.

 <= /span>

Remember there is = some publication in proceedings of VEE 2009, which had addressed your = problem. The solution continuously guests the performance characteristics of the application, = and adjust the preemption decisions of the scheduler itself. You can take a = look at that, but unfortunately, they did not provide the patch behind the = solution. Besides, I am not sure that whether such solution is really helpful to solve real problems on real hardware, since it is based its decisions on = possibilities.

 <= /span>

Zhiyuan=

 <= /span>

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: gaurav somani [mailto:onlineengineer@gmail.com]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2009=C4=EA5=D4=C26=C8=D5 17:09
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Zhiyuan Shao
=B3=AD=CB=CD: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: =B4=F0=B8=B4: [Xen-devel] = Credit scheduler vs SEDF scheduler

 

Hi Zhiyuan and George,

Thanks for the comments.

you are right i was getting spikes with more than 100ms and some times = 400ms.

I will be trying with the patch u suggetsed.

one more aspect, can we classify schedulers according to applications = they run.?

Like compute intensive on Credit and Latency intensive on sEDF or some = trade off between them (In a cluster of servers).


Thanks

Gaurav

2009/5/6 Zhiyuan Shao <zyshao.maillist@gmail.com&g= t;

Hi,

 

Your experiment results are actually = =A1=B0expected=A1=B1. There are several reasons make the results happen.

 

Firstly, Credit has long time slice (i.e., = 30 millisec by default), and this make the observed close-to 30ms RTT to = happen, actually, during such long RTT (the spike), the domain in test (domain 1 = of your experiment) is just scheduled-out (actually, I guess the spikes illustrated in your figure 1 should read higher than 30ms!). At the same = time, the scheduled-in vcpus (may executing the TEST program, which is = cpu-hogs), and they will not give up their 30-ms time slice if they are not preempted. =

 

Secondly, as regulated by Credit = scheduler, if a VCPU has no more credits, it will not be BOOSTed even it do have some = I/O requests to handle. This explains why your figure1, which has little = spikes in the first 150 second, and crowed spikes follow. Since vcpu of domain 1 = simply used out their credits, and can not preempt the other running vcpus of = other domains, even they do have I/O operations to accomplish (i.e., PING). =

 

Lastly, compared with Credit, SEDF = generally has short time slices, and it has bigger chances to preempt current running = vcpu when another vcpu found it has some I/O operations to be accomplished. (actually, I donot understand SEDF very well, but conclude these = features by reading the trace data)

 

Actually, you can use BCredit patch to = eliminate the spikes, I can guarantee that it will work very well! = J And I agree with George that you should not use PING to justify whether a scheduler is good or not.

 

Best,

Zhiyuan

 

 

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] =B4=FA=B1=ED gaurav somani
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2009=C4=EA5=D4=C25=C8=D5 17:26
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
=D6=F7=CC=E2: [Xen-devel] Credit scheduler vs SEDF = scheduler

 

Hi = list,

I am evaluating the scheduler behavior in xen.

I am using Xen 3.3.0
Dom0 and Dom1,2,3 and 4 all are opensuse 11.
I have one CPU Intensive TEST which has no. of arithmatic instruction in an infinite while() loop.
i am pinging domain1 with an external machine. and noting the RTT = values.

i have below experiments
time (s)          domain = state
0                 dom0,1,2,3,4 all idle
50             &= nbsp; dom2 TEST started
100           &nbs= p; dom3 TEST started
150           &nbs= p; dom4 TEST started
200           &nbs= p; dom0 TEST started
250           &nbs= p; dom2 TEST stopped
300           &nbs= p; dom3 TEST stopped
350           &nbs= p; dom4 TEST stopped
400             = dom0 TEST stopped

For these 400 seconds time, i have performed experiments with Credit and = SEDF sceduler.
the configuration is


Credit configuration - weight 256, cap 0
Domain      &nbs= p;           VCPU
0            =             &= nbsp;         2
1            =             &= nbsp;         2
2            =             &= nbsp;         2
3            =             &= nbsp;         2
4            =             &= nbsp;         2
all vcpu0s are pinned to pcpu0 and vcpu1s to pcpu1.


SEDF configuration - Period 10ms slice - 1.9ms
Domain      &nbs= p;           VCPU
0            =             &= nbsp;         2
1            =             &= nbsp;         2
2            =             &= nbsp;         2
3            =             &= nbsp;         2
4            =             &= nbsp;         2
all vcpu0s are pinned to pcpu0 and vcpu1s to pcpu1.

the results of RTT values are attached herewith. the performance of = Credit is very bad in comparison to SEDF in this scenario.
Please provide me some thought on it.


Thanks and Regards

Gaurav somani
M.Tech (ICT)
Dhribhai Ambani Institute of ICT,
INDIA

http://dcomp.daiict.ac.in/~gaurav






--
Gaurav somani
M.Tech (ICT)
Dhribhai Ambani Institute of ICT,
Gandhinagar
Gujarat, = INDIA

onlineengineer@ieee.org
gaurav_somani@daiict.ac.in=
http://dcomp.daiict.ac.in/~gau= rav
http://www.linkedin.com/= in/gauravsomani

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C9CF14.E51628A0-- --===============0832239411== 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 --===============0832239411==--