From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] consider vcpu-pin weight on CreditScheduler TAKE2 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:31:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: <54544386934904fcb51d4ece80ca9db9@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54544386934904fcb51d4ece80ca9db9@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Emmanuel Ackaouy , Atsushi SAKAI Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 27/6/07 13:21, "Emmanuel Ackaouy" 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