On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 09:44 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:59 AM, suokun <suokuns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The BOOST mechanism in Xen credit scheduler is designed to > > prioritize > > VM which has I/O-intensive application to handle the I/O request in > > time. However, this does not always work as expected. > > Thanks for the exploration, and the analysis. > Yep, indeed. :-)
> The BOOST mechanism is part of the reason I began to write the > credit2 > scheduler, which we are hoping (any day now) to make the default > scheduler. It was designed specifically with the workload you > mention > in mind. > The whole BOOST thing is an hack, and I don't have much problems believing it interacts poorly with the tickling mechanism, which, in Credit1, is not very precise and reliable (e.g., in Credit2, there is a 'tickled' mask). That being said, I'm looking at the analysis itself, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are suggesting it's going on... I will reply shortly with a few questions. > Would you care to try your test again and see how it fares? > Well, that would be a lot useful, for sure! :-D Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
