[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Should we mark RTDS as supported feature from experimental feature?

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Dario Faggioli
<dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 14:38 -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
>> > So, yes, the scheduler is now feature complete (with the per-vcpu
>> > parameters) and adheres to a much more sensible and scalable design
>> > (event driven). Yet, these features have been merged very recently,
>> > therefore, when you say "tested", I'm not so sure I agree. In fact,
>> > we
>> > do test it on OSSTest, but only in a couple of tests. The
>> > combination
>> > of these two things make me think that we should allow for at least
>> > another development cycle, before considering switching.
>> I see. So should we mark it as Completed for Xen 4.7? or should we
>> wait until Xen 4.8 to mark it as Completed if nothing bad happens to
>> the scheduler?
> We should define the criteria. :-)
> In any case, not earlier than 4.8, IMO.
>> > And even in that case, I wonder how we should handle such a
>> > situation... I was thinking of adding a work-conserving mode, what
>> > do
>> > you think?
>> Hmm, I can get why work-conserving mode is necessary and useful. I'm
>> thinking about the tradeoff  between the scheduler's complexity and
>> the benefit brought by introducing complexity.
>> The work-conserving mode is useful. However, there are other real
>> time
>> features in terms of the scheduler that may be also useful. For
>> example, I heard from some company that they want to run RT VM with
>> non-RT VM, which is supported in RT-Xen 2.1 version, but not
>> supported
>> in RTDS.
> I remember that, but I'm not sure what "running a non-RT VM" inside
> RTDS would mean. According to what algorithm these non real-time VMs
> would be scheduled?

A non-RT VM means the VM whose priority is lower than any RT VM. The
non-RT VMs won't get scheduled until all RT VMs have  been scheduled.
We can use the same gEDF scheduling policy to schedule non-RT VMs.

> Since you mentioned complexity, adding a work conserving mode should be
> easy enough, and if you allow a VM to be in work conserving mode, and
> have a very small (or even zero) budget, here you are a non real-time
> VM.

OK. I think it depends on what algorithm we want to use for the work
conserving mode? Do you have some algorithm in mind?

>> There are other RT-related issues we may need to solve to make it
>> more
>> suitable for real-time or embedded field, such as protocols to handle
>> the shared resource.
>> Since the scheduler aims for the embedded and real-time applications,
>> those RT-related features seems to me more important than the
>> work-conserving feature.
>> What do you think?
> There always will be new/other features... But that's not the point.


> What we need, here, is agree on what is the _minimum_ set of them that
> allows us to call the scheduler complete and usable. I think we're
> pretty close, with this work conserving mode I'm talking about the only
> candidate I can think of.

Since the point you raised here is that the work-conserving is
(probably) a must.

>> >
>> > You may have something similar in RT-Xen already but, even
>> > if you don't, there are a number of ways for achieving that without
>> > disrupting the real-time guarantees.
>> Actually, in RT-Xen, we don't have the work-conserving version yet.
> Yeah, sorry, I probably was confusing it with the "RT / non-RT" flag.

I see. :-)

Best regards,


Meng Xu
PhD Student in Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.