Xen 
 
Home About Xen.org Xen Xen Summit Wiki Mailing List Bug Tracker Xen Downloads
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] IPF/Xen VTI domain testing report for X

To: "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, "You, Yongkang" <yongkang.you@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-ia64-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] IPF/Xen VTI domain testing report for Xen 3.0.3 RC1
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:44:05 +0100
Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:43:34 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51CFAB8CB6883745AE7B93B3E084EBE207DC5B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcbjyV9RqKRYxfETTPut7tF0OQB28wAALAwQAADRN3Q=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] IPF/Xen VTI domain testing report for Xen 3.0.3 RC1
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 29/9/06 14:28, "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 5. LTP testing might run very slow in SMP VTI Domain with credit scheduler.
>> If binding VTI
>> and Xen0 vcpu, this bug won't be there.
> 
> Hi keir,
> 
> In credit scheduler, two vcpus in the same domain may be scheduled on the same
> CPU. For instance, vcpu0 and vcpu1 are running on the same CPU, vcpu0 is doing
> spin_lock in guest, then time slice is due, vcpu0 is scheduled out before
> doing spin_unlock, vcpu1 is scheduled in, vcpu1 is also trying to get the same
> spin lock, yes vcpu1 can't get this lock due to this lock has been got by
> vcpu0, so vcpu1 tight loop until its time slice is due, so this domain is very
> slow.
> Of cause, even vcpu0 and vcpu1 are running on different CPUs, there is still
> similar situation, but the impact is less.
> 
> What do you think about this?

IBM did some tests at one point which concluded that we'd get little or no
benefit from paravirtualising spinlocks to yield-on-spin. This is mainly
because spinlock critical regions are usually very small. The chances of
preempting someone while they are in a spinlock critical region, *and*
scheduling someone else who wants to take the same lock, *and* not having
another CPU idle enough to run the lock-holding VCPU, should be very small.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>