On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:18:06PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 11:39 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:12:15AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> > _Almost_ correct. However, the problem is more that vcpu_wake() can
>> > happen in response to an IRQ, and when
On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 11:39 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:12:15AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > _Almost_ correct. However, the problem is more that vcpu_wake() can
> > happen in response to an IRQ, and when you grab a spinlock in IRQ
> > context, you need to disable IRQs.
>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:55:16AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:12 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> _Almost_ correct. However, the problem is more that vcpu_wake() can
>> happen in response to an IRQ, and when you grab a spinlock in IRQ
>> context, you need to disable IRQs.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:12:15AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 03:30 +, Wei Yang wrote:
>> Dario,
>>
>Hey, hi again, and sorry for the in getting back at this particular
>part of the conversation.
>
Sure, I was busy with other stuffs these days :-(
>> Just get chance
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:12 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> _Almost_ correct. However, the problem is more that vcpu_wake() can
> happen in response to an IRQ, and when you grab a spinlock in IRQ
> context, you need to disable IRQs.
>
> There is a good explanation of why, here:
>
Ah, sorry, link i
On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 12:03 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> Dario,
>
> Took a look into your code, some questions as below:
>
Haha, here you are! :-D
> 1. vcpu_wake is split into two cases, the first case is "not in irq"
> and "irq
> enabled". Some reason for this classification? Maybe some background
>
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 03:30 +, Wei Yang wrote:
> Dario,
>
Hey, hi again, and sorry for the in getting back at this particular
part of the conversation.
> Just get chance to look into this. This is interesting and I am
> trying to
> understand the problem you want to solve first.
>
:-)
> vcp
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:24:17AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 00:31 +, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:07:08PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> > But then again, if the system is not oversubscribed, I'd tend to
>> > think
>> > it to be tolerable, and I'd ex
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 00:31 +, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:07:08PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > But then again, if the system is not oversubscribed, I'd tend to
> > think
> > it to be tolerable, and I'd expect the biggest problem to be the
> > work-
> > stealing logic (cons
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:30:17PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>[using xendevel correct address]
>
>On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 16:54 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:41 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm not surprised by that. Yet, I'd be interested in hearing more
>> > about this
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:44:17PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:30:17PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>[using xendevel correct address]
>>
>>On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 16:54 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:41 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm not surprised
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:07:08PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 10:49 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:18:48PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 18:44 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> > If the system is not overbooked, it's a bit strange tha
On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 10:49 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:18:48PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 18:44 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> > If the system is not overbooked, it's a bit strange that the
> > scheduler
> > is the bottleneck.
> I looked at the origina
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:18:48PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 18:44 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:30:17PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you mind sharing just a bit more, such as:
>> > - number of pcpus
>> > - number of vcpus of the vari
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 18:44 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:30:17PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > Do you mind sharing just a bit more, such as:
> > - number of pcpus
> > - number of vcpus of the various VMs
> 160 pcpus
> 16 vcpus in VM and 8 VMs
>
So, 16x8=128, which
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:30:17PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>[using xendevel correct address]
>
>On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 16:54 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:41 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm not surprised by that. Yet, I'd be interested in hearing more
>> > about this
[using xendevel correct address]
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 16:54 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:41 +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> >
> > I'm not surprised by that. Yet, I'd be interested in hearing more
> > about this profiling you have done (things like, how you captured
> > the data, wh
17 matches
Mail list logo
