On 12/02/2010 05:23 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/02/2010 08:39 AM, lidong chen wrote:
In certain use-cases, we want to allocate guests fixed time slices
where idle
guest cycles leave the machine idling.
i could not understand why need this? can you tell more detailedly?
If you run 4 guests on a CPU, and they're all trying to consume 100%
CPU, all things being equal, you'll get ~25% CPU for each guest.
However, if one guest is idle, you'll get something like 1% 32% 33%
32%. This characteristic is usually desirable because it increase
aggregate throughput but in some circumstances, determinism is more
desirable than aggregate throughput.
This patch essentially makes guest execution non-work conserving by
making it appear to the scheduler that each guest wants 100% CPU even
though they may be idling.
That means that regardless of what each guest is doing, if you have
four guests on one CPU, each will get ~25% CPU[1].
What if one of the guest crashes qemu or invokes a powerdown? Suddenly
the others get 33% each (with 1% going to my secret round-up account).
Doesn't seem like a reliable way to limit cpu.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
