[PATCH RFC v1 4/4] libxc for rt scheduler

[Meng Xu <xumengpanda@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1530 bytes --]

Hi Ian and George,

George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com');>
>于2014年7月17日星期四写道：

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 16:49 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> >> So, the bouncing logic seems fine. Looking at what other schedulers do,
> >> there should be no particular need for bouncing anything.
> >
> > Seems like there is some confusing precedent around the use of sysctl vs
> > domctl for sched parameters here.
> >
> > Most schedulers use domctl but arinc uses sysctl.
>
> They're controlling different things.
>
> domctl is controlling parameters related to *a particular domain* (for
> instance, weight or cap); sysctl is relating to setting parameters
> *for the scheduler as a whole* (for example, timeslice).
>
>
Do we have to use inline parameters in domctl?

Right now, we used the domctl to set/get the parameters of each vcpu of a
domain. So from what the functionality does, it should be in domctl.  If we
don't have to use inline parameters, I would prefer to use domctl. :-)

The reason why ARINC653 scheduler uses sysctl to set parameters is as
George said. It sets the scheduling sequence for the ARINC653 scheduler,
instead of setting the parameters of a domain.

Thank you very much!

Best,

Meng




-- 


-----------
Meng Xu
PhD Student in Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1986 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel