Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] libxl: don't hardcode scheduler weight

2018-03-21 Thread Jim Fehlig
On 03/02/2018 02:38 PM, John Ferlan wrote: On 02/22/2018 05:20 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote: Long ago in commit dfa1e1dd53 the scheduler weight was accidentally hardcoded to 1000. Weight is a setting with no unit since it is relative to the weight of other domains. If no weight is specified, libxl

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] libxl: don't hardcode scheduler weight

2018-03-02 Thread John Ferlan
On 02/22/2018 05:20 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote: > Long ago in commit dfa1e1dd53 the scheduler weight was accidentally > hardcoded to 1000. Weight is a setting with no unit since it is > relative to the weight of other domains. If no weight is specified, > libxl defaults to 256. > > Instead of

[libvirt] [PATCH] libxl: don't hardcode scheduler weight

2018-02-22 Thread Jim Fehlig
Long ago in commit dfa1e1dd53 the scheduler weight was accidentally hardcoded to 1000. Weight is a setting with no unit since it is relative to the weight of other domains. If no weight is specified, libxl defaults to 256. Instead of hardcoding the weight to 1000, honor any specified in .