[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Questions about the use of idle_vcpu[]
Hi Dario, On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 11:07 -0500, Meng Xu wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Dario Faggioli >> <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > RTDS behavior is broken in many respect, including this, >> > >> > and in fact, >> > Meng and Tianyang are sending patches already to fix it (I'll let >> > you >> > guys have my comments shortly :-P). >> >> >> Right. Tianyang and I are working on changing it from quantum driven >> model to event-driven (or called timer-driven) model. Tianyang sent >> out the first-version patch, but that version has some problems. He >> is >> working on the second version now. >> >> Hi Dario, >> Tianyang is working on the second version right now. >> If you could have a quick look at our discussion in that thread and >> points out the "serious" issues in the decision, that will be great! >> > Ok, that's useful to know... I'll do that way. > >> We won't repeat the error again and again in the following versions. >> As to the minor issues, we could refine it in the second version. >> (I'm just thinking about how to save your time to have this done. For >> the obvious things that I can handle, I will do it and avoid >> "wasting" >> you time. For the design choices that we are unclear, we definitely >> need your insights/commands. ;-) ) >> > Thanks for all this. :-) > >> Hi George, >> Yes, you are right. The current RTDS should not return 0 when the >> idle >> VCPU is picked. I think it should do as what the credit does, i.e., >> returning a negative value to avoid arming the timer. >> Right now, we are working on changing RTDS to event-driven model. We >> will fix this in theNah, the rework you're doing is big enough, that this >> change can very well find its place in there. > next version of the patch. >> >> If needed, we can send out a separate patch to fix this specific >> issue >> (i.e. it should return negative value when idle vcpu is picked.) I'm >> ok with either way. Which way do you guys prefer? >> > Nah, the rework you're doing is big enough, that this change can very > well find its place in there. > > Doing it right now will need efforts on both our sides, only for the > sake of putting something from "broken" to "just a little bit less > broken" state, and I don't think that's worth. :-P > I see and got it. BTW, please let me know if I should "ack" the decision. If not, I will not send this kind of email in the future to avoid spamming your email folders. ;-) Best, Meng ----------- Meng Xu PhD Student in Computer and Information Science University of Pennsylvania http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mengxu/ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |