Re: [PATCH RFC 00/49] xen: add core scheduling support

From: Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
	Robert VanVossen <Robert.VanVossen@dornerworks.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
	Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>,
	Joshua Whitehead <josh.whitehead@dornerworks.com>,
	Meng Xu <mengxu@cis.upenn.edu>,
	Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/49] xen: add core scheduling support
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 18:29:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e01428f68ac70badd6396c5c295e632efcbbf572.camel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <63d8e13a-2dee-916a-61d4-7d69c7bb0a4d@suse.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1848 bytes --]

On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 18:00 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 29/03/2019 17:56, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > As said by Juergen, the two approaches (and hence the structure of
> > the
> > series) are quite different. This series is more generic, acts on
> > the
> > common scheduler code and logic. It's quite intrusive, as we can
> > see
> > :-D, but enables the feature for all the schedulers all at once
> > (well,
> > they all need changes, but mostly mechanical).
> > 
> > My series, OTOH, act on each scheduler specifically (and in fact
> > there
> > is one for Credit and one for Credit2, and there would need to be
> > one
> > for RTDS, if wanted, etc). They're much more self contained, but
> > less
> > generic; and the changes necessary within each scheduler are
> > specific
> > to the scheduler itself, and non-mechanical.
> 
> Another line of thought: in case we want core scheduling for security
> reasons (to ensure always vcpus of the same guest are sharing a core)
> the same might apply to the guest itself: it might want to ensure
> only threads of the same process are sharing a core.
>
Sure, as soon as we'll manage to "passthrough" to it the necessary
topology information.

> This would be
> quite easy with my series, but impossible for Dario's solution
> without
> the fixed relationship between guest siblings.
>
Well, not "impossible". :-)

As said above, that's not there, but it can be added/implemented.

Anyway... Lemme go back looking at the patches, and preparing for
running benchmarks. :-D :-D

Dario
-- 
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Virtualization Software Engineer
SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel