At 06/10/2011 08:32 PM, Adam Litke Write:
>
>
> On 06/10/2011 05:25 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
>>
>>> --- snip ---
>>>
>>> ...
>>> 100
>>> 50
>>>
>>> --- snip ---
>>
>> I think the element name should be generic and
>> the percentage (0..100 or 0..vcpu*100) is better as
>> the elem
On 06/10/2011 04:45 AM, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>> === 3 ===
>>> Besides the above issues, I would like to open a discussion on what the
>>> libvirt API for enabling cpu hardlimits should look like. Here is what
>>> I was thinking:
>>>
>>> Two additional scheduler parameters (based on the names given
On 06/10/2011 04:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:20:23PM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
>> Hi all. In this post I would like to bring up 3 issues which are
>> tightly related: 1. unwanted behavior when using cfs hardlimits with
>> libvirt, 2. Scaling cputune.share accordi
On 06/10/2011 05:25 AM, Taku Izumi wrote:
>
>> --- snip ---
>>
>> ...
>> 100
>> 50
>>
>> --- snip ---
>
> I think the element name should be generic and
> the percentage (0..100 or 0..vcpu*100) is better as
> the element value. That's intuitive to me.
>
> How about the fol
> --- snip ---
>
> ...
> 100
> 50
>
> --- snip ---
I think the element name should be generic and
the percentage (0..100 or 0..vcpu*100) is better as
the element value. That's intuitive to me.
How about the follwing?
50
If it is not possible to control enough o
At 06/10/2011 05:20 PM, Daniel P. Berrange Write:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:20:23PM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
>> Hi all. In this post I would like to bring up 3 issues which are
>> tightly related: 1. unwanted behavior when using cfs hardlimits with
>> libvirt, 2. Scaling cputune.share according
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 02:20:23PM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> Hi all. In this post I would like to bring up 3 issues which are
> tightly related: 1. unwanted behavior when using cfs hardlimits with
> libvirt, 2. Scaling cputune.share according to the number of vcpus, 3.
> API proposal for CFS hard
At 06/09/2011 03:20 AM, Adam Litke Write:
> Hi all. In this post I would like to bring up 3 issues which are
> tightly related: 1. unwanted behavior when using cfs hardlimits with
> libvirt, 2. Scaling cputune.share according to the number of vcpus, 3.
> API proposal for CFS hardlimits support.
>
Hi all. In this post I would like to bring up 3 issues which are
tightly related: 1. unwanted behavior when using cfs hardlimits with
libvirt, 2. Scaling cputune.share according to the number of vcpus, 3.
API proposal for CFS hardlimits support.
=== 1 ===
Mark Peloquin (on cc:) has been looking
