Hello Dario,
On 22.02.18 19:53, Dario Faggioli wrote:
As I said already, improving the accounting would be more than welcome.
If you're planning on doing something like this already, I'll be happy
to look at the patches. :-)
First I have to document my findings and make some conclusions about
a
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 13:34 +0200, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> Hello Dario,
>
Hi,
> On 16.02.18 20:37, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > And in any case, is it, in its turn (I mean the
> > workload running in DomR) a synthetic real-time load, or is it a
> > real
> > real-time application?
>
> Real-time domai
Hello Dario,
On 16.02.18 20:37, Dario Faggioli wrote:
And what is it that is running in DomR, the same thing as before, when
the load was synthetic?
For sure I compare apples to apples.
And in any case, is it, in its turn (I mean the
workload running in DomR) a synthetic real-time load, or i
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 20:44 +0200, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> Dario,
>
Hi,
> On 12.02.18 12:20, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> > Actually as per Meng's explanation and calculations the problem was
> > on
> > my side - wrong DomR task/VCPU parameters.
> > I was running the system with dummy loads and values
Dario,
On 12.02.18 12:20, Andrii Anisov wrote:
Actually as per Meng's explanation and calculations the problem was on
my side - wrong DomR task/VCPU parameters.
I was running the system with dummy loads and values received from
CARTS and all seems to be ok (no deadline misses occured).
Well, w
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Andrii Anisov wrote:
>
> Dario, Meng,
>
>
> On 12.02.18 12:17, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>
>> Well, I'll let Andrii reply, but honestly, I don't think it is.
>>
>> See, for instance, the fact that DomR has only 1 vCPU, so I find it
>> unlikely that the only thing that
Dario, Meng,
On 12.02.18 12:17, Dario Faggioli wrote:
Well, I'll let Andrii reply, but honestly, I don't think it is.
See, for instance, the fact that DomR has only 1 vCPU, so I find it
unlikely that the only thing that run there is *just* *one* real-time
task. :-/
While I'm focused mainly on
Hello Meng,
On 10.02.18 06:53, Meng Xu wrote:
If the RT VCPU has only one RT task on it, we can synchronize the
release time of the VCPU and that of the RT task. In other words, the
release offset of both the VCPU and the RT task are the same in terms
of the wall clock. Then we can assign the t
Hello Dario,
On 09.02.18 17:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
So, I'm a little bit in a hurry now, and I'll reply better later (or on
Monday). But for now, just to understand things better, can you enable
extratime for DomR as well, and report what you see in xentop, and
whether or not you still see de
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 23:53 -0500, Meng Xu wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps Meng has some more ideas on this as well. :-)
>
> If the RT VCPU has only one RT task on it, we can synchronize the
> release time of the VCPU and that of the RT task. In other words, the
> release offset of both the VCPU and the R
>
> It looks like DomR's vCPU does get 50% of CPU time, so it's not that
> other vCPUs are preventing it to exploit all its own reservation. If
> that would have not been the case, there'd be a bug in the scheduler.
>
> By giving the vCPU 100% (either via "budget == period" or with
> extratime), we
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 12:51 -0500, Meng Xu wrote:
> > On 09.02.18 17:36, Meng Xu wrote:
> > > Another way to check if there is interference from services in
> > > domR is
> > > to set period = budget for the domR's VCPUs.
> >
> > Could you please explain how setting budget equal to period would
>
Thank you, I'll take a look.
On 09.02.18 19:53, Meng Xu wrote:
Sure!
It's attached.
Meng
--
*Andrii Anisov*
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Andrii Anisov wrote:
>
> On 09.02.18 17:34, Meng Xu wrote:
>>
>> If you want to keep the same VCPU parameter, can you try to set task's
>> period = 100ms and exe time = 40ms?
>> By theory (I used CARTS to compute), a VCPU (10ms, 5ms) can schedule a
>> task (100ms,
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> Hello Meng Xu,
>
>
> On 09.02.18 17:36, Meng Xu wrote:
>>
>> Another way to check if there is interference from services in domR is
>> to set period = budget for the domR's VCPUs.
>
> Could you please explain how setting budget equal to perio
On 09.02.18 17:34, Meng Xu wrote:
If you want to keep the same VCPU parameter, can you try to set task's
period = 100ms and exe time = 40ms?
By theory (I used CARTS to compute), a VCPU (10ms, 5ms) can schedule a
task (100ms, 40ms).
Note that the resource demand of two RT tasks with the same
ut
Hello Meng Xu,
On 09.02.18 17:36, Meng Xu wrote:
Another way to check if there is interference from services in domR is
to set period = budget for the domR's VCPUs.
Could you please explain how setting budget equal to period would help
discover any interferences from services in the domain?
Hello Meng Xu,
Thank you for your explanation.
On 09.02.18 17:34, Meng Xu wrote:
To make sure no deadline miss of a task on a VCPU, we must guarantee:
1) The VCPU gets its configured time, which is shown in your following
emails that it does;
2) When the VCPU ​gets its configured time, the ta
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 17:03 +0200, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> > > If DomR is not able to get its share, then we have an issue/bug in
> > > the
> > > scheduler. If it does, then the scheduler is doing its job, and the
> > > issue may be somewhe
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Andrii Anisov
wrote:
> Dear Dario,
>
> Now I'm experimenting with RTDS, in particular with "extra time"
> functionality.
>
> My experimental setup is built on Salvator-X board with H3 SOC (running
> only big cores cluster, 4xA57).
> Domains up and running, and thei
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 17:03 +0200, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> > If DomR is not able to get its share, then we have an issue/bug in
> > the
> > scheduler. If it does, then the scheduler is doing its job, and the
> > issue may be somewhere else (e.g., something inside the guest may
> > eat
> > some of th
Hello Dario,
On 09.02.18 15:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
Ok, so you're giving:
- 40% CPU time to Domain-0
- 50% CPU time to DomR
- 40% CPU time to DomA
- 40% CPU time to DomD
total utilization is 170%. As far as I've understood you have 4 CPUs,
right? If yes, there *should* be no problems. (Well, i
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 14:20 +0200, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> Dear Dario,
>
Hi,
> My experimental setup is built on Salvator-X board with H3 SOC
> (running
> only big cores cluster, 4xA57).
> Domains up and running, and their VCPU are as following:
>
> root@generic-armv8-xt-dom0:/xt/dom.cfg# xl sch
Hello Dario,
I eventually used your old email.
Please take a look here.
On 09.02.18 14:20, Andrii Anisov wrote:
Dear Dario,
Now I'm experimenting with RTDS, in particular with "extra time"
functionality.
My experimental setup is built on Salvator-X board with H3 SOC
(running only big co
24 matches
Mail list logo
