On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:24:47AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>(Chao Gao got lost from the recipients list again; re-adding)
>
On 08.05.17 at 11:13, wrote:
>> On 08/05/17 17:15, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:21:27AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.05.17 at 12:08, wrot
(Chao Gao got lost from the recipients list again; re-adding)
>>> On 08.05.17 at 11:13, wrote:
> On 08/05/17 17:15, Chao Gao wrote:
>> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:21:27AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.05.17 at 12:08, wrote:
On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 20
On 08/05/17 17:15, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:21:27AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.05.17 at 12:08, wrote:
>>> On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
>> I compared
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 02:39:25AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.05.17 at 18:15, wrote:
>> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:21:27AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.05.17 at 12:08, wrote:
On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap
>>> On 08.05.17 at 18:15, wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:21:27AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.05.17 at 12:08, wrote:
>>> On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
>> I compared
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:21:27AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.05.17 at 12:08, wrote:
>> On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
> I compared the maximum of #entry in one list and #ev
>>> On 03.05.17 at 12:08, wrote:
> On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
I compared the maximum of #entry in one list and #event (adding entry to
PI blocking list) with and without the t
On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> I compared the maximum of #entry in one list and #event (adding entry to
>>> PI blocking list) with and without the three latter patches. Here
>>> is the res
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
>> I compared the maximum of #entry in one list and #event (adding entry to
>> PI blocking list) with and without the three latter patches. Here
>> is the result:
>> --
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:44:26AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
VT-d PI introduces a per-pCPU blocking list to track the blocked vCPU
r
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> VT-d PI introduces a per-pCPU blocking list to track the blocked vCPU
>>> running on the pCPU. Theoretically, there are 32K domain on single
>>
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
>> VT-d PI introduces a per-pCPU blocking list to track the blocked vCPU
>> running on the pCPU. Theoretically, there are 32K domain on single
>> host, 128 vCPUs per domain. If all vCPUs are blocked o
On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
> VT-d PI introduces a per-pCPU blocking list to track the blocked vCPU
> running on the pCPU. Theoretically, there are 32K domain on single
> host, 128 vCPUs per domain. If all vCPUs are blocked on the same pCPU,
> 4M vCPUs are in the same list. Travelling this i
>>> On 26.04.17 at 05:30, wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 02:19:22AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.04.17 at 02:52, wrote:
>>> Patch 2/4 randomly distritbutes entries (vCPUs) among all oneline
>>> pCPUs, which can theoretically decrease the maximum of #entry
>>> in the list by N times. N
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 02:19:22AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.04.17 at 02:52, wrote:
>> Patch 2/4 randomly distritbutes entries (vCPUs) among all oneline
>> pCPUs, which can theoretically decrease the maximum of #entry
>> in the list by N times. N is #pCPU.
>
>Why randomly? Shouldn't cur
>>> On 26.04.17 at 02:52, wrote:
> Patch 2/4 randomly distritbutes entries (vCPUs) among all oneline
> pCPUs, which can theoretically decrease the maximum of #entry
> in the list by N times. N is #pCPU.
Why randomly? Shouldn't current list length determine which CPU(s)
to prefer?
Jan
_
VT-d PI introduces a per-pCPU blocking list to track the blocked vCPU
running on the pCPU. Theoretically, there are 32K domain on single
host, 128 vCPUs per domain. If all vCPUs are blocked on the same pCPU,
4M vCPUs are in the same list. Travelling this issue consumes too
much time. We have discus
17 matches
Mail list logo
