On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 07:01 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 10/28/2015 06:54 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > >> > Yeah, well, sorry, but even if we both (me and George) encouraged >> > you >> > to try Credit2, that wasn't a great idea. :-( In fact, you're >> > using >> > pinning for this test, and Credit2 does not have pinning (yet)! :-P >> > >> > That explains why utilizations are summing up to higher than 100%: >> > vCPUs are just not being confined to one processor. >> > >> > Pinning for Credit2 is just around the corner. Let's try this again >> > when it will be there, ok? :-D >> >> Or try it in a cpupool with just one pcpu? >> > Oh, well, yes. That is certainly an alternative. :-) > > I'm curious about how it'd go, so I'm probably going to give it a try > later...
I was going to say, using cpupools rather than pinning is probably a better idea anyway. I might go so far as to say that if you're trying to test the actual scheduling algorithms, you should *only* use cpupools and *never* pinning. The whole reason we invented cpupools in the first place was that pinning tends to break the assumptions of the scheduling algorithms in ways it's not really cost-effective to work around. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel