Re: [Xen-devel] Re: IDLE domain is scheduled more than dom0

[Stephan Diestelhorst <sd386@xxxxxxxxx>]

>BTW, on my uniprocessor test machine with latest xen-unstable,

>xenlinux 2.6.11.12, domU sees significant drop in network throughputs
>(~40% less!) I'm interested in whether other people encounter similar
>situations, especially on SMP machines.
>
>
>  
>
Mhmhm, this is interesting, what are the timing parameters for your domains?

Thanks,
   Stephan

>On 7/8/05, Andrew Theurer <habanero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Friday 08 July 2005 11:33, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Friday 08 July 2005 09:53, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>  Shouldn't IDLE domain not be scheduled for most time? Because
>>>>>idle task will call into PAL for power save on XEN/IA64, the
>>>>>performance is really, really bad to boot Dom0. The net effect is
>>>>>about ten times slower. After adding "sched=bvt", everything back
>>>>>to normal.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>If the sedf scheduler is scheduling the idle domain when
>>>>domain0 is runnable, surely this is affecting performance
>>>>on x86 also and is a bug that should be fixed?
>>>>
>>>>Has anyone done any performance testing (on x86) since
>>>>sedf was checked in as the default?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Just tried launching some cpu bound tasks in dom0, and I get only 75%
>>>cpu util for dom0.  I'll try the other domain scheduler and see if it
>>>clears it up.
>>>      
>>>
>>OK, just confirmed bvt works as expected in ia32.
>>
>>-Andrew
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Xen-devel mailing list
>>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>  
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel