Re: [PATCH][RFC] consider vcpu-pin weight on CreditScheduler TAKE2

[Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com>]

On 27/6/07 13:21, "Emmanuel Ackaouy" <ackaouy@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Which is the best way to solve?
> 
> If you could solve the generic problem in a simpler way, I would
> not be opposed to it. But +365 lines in what is already a fairly
> complex accounting code path doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> I can't even understand what weights mean when every CPU
> has a different pin cpumask. Weights only make sense to me
> when VMs compete for resources.
> 
> In my opinion, adding the concept of dynamic partitioning (or
> segmentation) of the host system would allow a bunch of people
> to no longer have to pin their VCPUs. This is desirable.

Partitioning is a very sensible simplification in many (most?) cases, but
would need plumbing all the way up through xen-api, which is a pain. I still
suspect that the patch could be simplified even without interface changes. I
don't understand the need to add extra complexity on every accounting
period.

 -- Keir