On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:34 +0100, David Xu wrote:
> Thanks. The boost mechanism in credit can significantly reduce the
> scheduling latency for pure I/O workload. Since the minimum interval
> of credit scheduling is 10ms, the magnitude of latency for the target
> VM should be 10ms (except the credit is not used up and vcpu remain
> the head of runqueue ) as well. Why the real latency in my test (Ping
> the target VM) is much shorter than 10ms? Does the vcpu of target VM
> remain the head of runqueue if it was boosted?
>
>
> David
>
> 2011/5/25 George Dunlap <
george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 09:15 +0100, David Xu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Xen4.1 datasheet tells that credit2 scheduler is designed
> for latency
> > sensitive workloads. Does it have some improvement on the
> hybrid
> > workload including both the cpu-bound and latency-sensitive
> i/o work?
> > For example, if a VM runs a cpu-bound task burning the cpu
> and a
> > i/o-bound (latency-sensitive) task simultaneously, will the
> latency be
> > guaranteed? And how?
>
>
> At the moment, the "mixed workload" problem, where a single VM
> does both
> cpu-intensive and latency-sensitive* workloads, has not been
> addressed
> yet. I have some ideas, but I haven't implemented them yet.
>
> * i/o-bound is not the same as latency sensitive. They
> obviously go
> together frequently, but I would make a distinction between
> them. For
> example, an scp (copy over ssh) can easily become cpu-bound if
> there is
> competition for the cpu -- but it is nonetheless latency
> sensitive. (I
> guess to put it another way, a workload which is
> latency-sensitive may
> become i/o-bound if its scheduling latency is too high.)
>
> -George
>
>
>