Re: Test result of xen-unstable changeset 25249

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 16:35 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 16:28 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: 
> > > It seems to me that, in such case, we will be setting the wrong set of
> > > parameters anyway, independently on how well we manage in putting a
> > > default in place for them... Am I missing something? If not, as I
> > > haven't found any way of finding out what scheduler is actually being
> > > used for a specific domain, shouldn't we add or mimic that (going
> > > through cpupool, perhaps, I haven't checked yet)?
> > 
> > I think you are right. Should we have libxl_gfet_domain_scheduler (or
> > some such) which implements the appropriate logic?
> > 
> If we want to keep the patch (and I'm sure we want, as having the
> possibility to set scheduling parameters in the config file kills a
> regression against xm, and it's a very nice feature after all :-D) I
> think we should.
> 
> I can look into that if you want. I'm also trying to figure out if a
> default value for the various parameters of the various scheduler can be
> "elected". It doesn't look like an easy thing to do, e.g., consider sedf
> wants time values for "period" and "slice", so virtually any unsigned
> value is meaningful, although, yes, period=0 or slice=0 barely make
> sense, and thus maybe we can use these...

There's always ~(TYPE)0 for whatever the type is...

Ian.