[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: IDLE domain is scheduled more than dom0
Kevin, I just made my own measurements on my machine (intel dual xeon 2.4 GhZ SMT aka. HT) results: My machine: SEDF: dom0 (15ms/20ms,extra on) dom0 cpu-time after boot: 7796144577 ~ 7.8 sec idle -"- 40933867915 ~ 40.9 sec -> total boot-time: 48.7 sec ratio: 0.191 SEDF: dom0 (5ms/20ms,xon) dom0 cpu-time after boot: 8300470815 ~ 8.3 sec idle -"- 38639540787 ~ 38.6 sec -> total boot-time: 46.9 sec ratio: 0.215 With BVT: dom0 cpu-time after boot: 0x1F20E0DF4 = 8355974644 ~ 8.4 sec idle -"- 0x7D5F045FA = 33654064634 ~ 33.7 sec -> total boot-time: 42.1 sec ratio: 0.248 Kevin Tian's measurements (on IA64 hardware): SEDF: dom0 (15/20, xoff) Dom0 0x5420288a1b = 361316780571 ~ 361.3 sec IDLE 0x93def9294f = 635101063503 ~ 635.1 sec -> total boot time: 996.4 sec ?! ratio: 0.57 SEDF: dom0(15/20, xon) Dom0 0x1040A91728 = 69804300072 ~ 69.8 sec IDLE 0x19CE88F3E7 = 110839264231 ~ 110.8 sec -> total boot time: 180.6 sec ratio: 0.63 SEDF: dom0(20/20, xoff) Dom0 0x2D61AF8D5D = 194912423261 ~ 194.9 sec IDLE 0x48FD92BF = 1224577727 ~ 1.2 sec -> total boot time: 196.1 sec ratio: 162.42 As you see, for me the fiddling with the parameters of sedf doesn't make much difference (even to BVT) and the idle-task always has 4-5 times as much CPU time as dom0. In my setup this is due to mounting of NFS devices, which takes quite a while, where dom0 is blocked most of the times. So our times might not be comparable. Did you take your samples at a similar stage during / after boot? I find it quite strange that they have such a massive variance! I'll look into I/O performance during extra-time execution anyways, probably these artifacts will vanish when addressing this issue! Thanks, Stephan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |