Hi Dario, Thanks for the reply!
My goal for the experiment is to show that xen rtds scheduler is better than credit scheduler when it comes to real time tasks. so my set up is: for xen-credit : 2vms sharing 8 cores (cpu 0-7) using credit scheduler(both with weight of 800 and capacity of 400) for xen-rtds: 2 vms sharing 8 cores (cpu0-7) using RTDS (both with period of 10000 and budget of 5000) in both setup, dom0 is using 1 core from cpu 8-15 VM2 will run tasks that has utilization of 4 cores. VM1 will run tasks that has utilization from 1 to 4, and I will record VM1's schedulbility. I am hoping to see that the VM1 using xen-rtds will perform better than the VM1 using xen-credit, but what I am seeing is the opposite. Thank you! Victor On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 07:42 -0800, Yu-An(Victor) Chen wrote: > > Hi all, > > > Hello, > > > So I was doing some experiments to evaluate RTDS scheduler > > schedubility of real time tasks using 1vm with period of 10000 and > > budget of 10000. The experiment results turn out as expected(perform > > better than xen-credit). > > > > But when I tried to perform similar experiments with 2 vms (both with > > now period of 10000 and budget of 5000). The schedubility of real > > time tasks turn out really bad. Even if I have one vm idling and the > > other vm running the real time tasks, the schedubility of that vm is > > still really poor(worse than xen-credit). Am I missing some > > configuration I should have set for 2vm cases? Thank you > > > What is it that you are trying to prove with this setup? This is > despite all Meng is already saying about the non-work conserving nature > of RTDS, and about the LITMUS IPI bug. > > In fact, in general, real-time schedulers are really good at isolating > workloads, with precise time guarantees. If you have stuff that needs > to be done in 2 VMs, and you use RTDS for scheduling the 2 VMs, you'll > get good and precisely characterized isolation between them. > > But if you put all the stuff in only 1 VM, and then limit its own > utilization, all you are doing is making it hard for the things inside > the VM itself to achieve their target performance, with respect to both > an instance of RTDS where that VM has 100% utilization, as well as with > (almost) any general purpose scheduler. > > Then, again, as Meng is saying, if you not only have "stuff" to do > inside the VM, but you are interested in in-guest real-time, then the > scheduling parameters of the VM(s) and the ones of the tasks in the > guest(s), should be set according to a proper real-time hierarchical > scheduling scheme that allows for guarantees to be met. > > 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) > >
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
