* Srivatsa Vaddagiri (va...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 05:27:52PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:14:16AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > > > Perhaps it should be a VM level option. And then invert the notion. > > > Create one idle domain w/out hlt trap. Give that VM a vcpu per pcpu > > > (pin in place probably). And have that VM do nothing other than hlt. > > > Then it's always runnable according to scheduler, and can "consume" the > > > extra work that CFS wants to give away. > > > > That's not sufficient. Lets we have 3 guests A, B, C that need to be rate > > limited to 25% on a single cpu system. We create this idle guest D that is > > 100% > > cpu hog as per above definition. Now when one of the guest is idle, what > > ensures > > that the idle cycles of A is given only to D and not partly to B/C? > > To tackle this problem, I was thinking of having a fill-thread associated > with > each vcpu (i.e both belong to same cgroup). Fill-thread consumes idle cycles > left by vcpu, but otherwise doesn't compete with it for cycles.
That's what Marcelo's suggestion does w/out a fill thread. -- 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
