Re: [Xen-devel] [Xen-users] xl doesn't honour the parameter cpu_weight from my config file while xm does honour it

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [Xen-users] xl doesn't honour the 
parameter cpu_weight from my config file while xm does honour it"):
> diff -r aef90d90eb3b tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl     Tue Apr 24 16:53:00 2012 +0100
> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl     Tue Apr 24 17:15:12 2012 +0100
...
> +libxl_sched_credit_domain = Struct("sched_credit_domain", [
> +    ("weight", integer),
...
...
> +libxl_sched_credit2_domain = Struct("sched_credit2_domain", [
> +    ("weight", integer),
...
> +libxl_sched_sedf_domain = Struct("sched_sedf_domain", [
...
> +    ("weight", integer),
> +    ])
> +
> +libxl_sched_arinc653_domain = Struct("sched_arinc653_domain", [
> +    ("weight", integer),
> +    ])
...
> +    ("sched_params",     Struct(None, [("credit", libxl_sched_credit_domain),
> +                                       ("credit2", 
> libxl_sched_credit2_domain),
> +                                       ("sedf", libxl_sched_sedf_domain),
> +                                       ("arinc653", 
> libxl_sched_arinc653_domain),
> +                                       ]))

The resulting sched_params structure contains four subfields called
"weight", all of which mean (roughly, obviously) the same thing and
all of which are to be set from the same "weight" xl configuration
parameter.  Is this really the most sensible way to do things ?

Perhaps it would be better to have a single sched_params struct which
contained all the parameters needed for any scheduler, and simply have
them ignored by libxl for schedulers we're not using.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel