On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
> On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 12:16 -0700, Meng Xu wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Dario Faggioli
>> <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 22:43 -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
>> > >
>> > > As to (1), if users want to set some VCPUs with extratime flag
>> > > set
>> > > and
>> > > some with extratime flag clear, there are two types of input:
>> > > (a) xl sched-rtds -d 1 -v 1 -p 10000 -b 4000 -e 0 -v 2 -p 10000
>> > > -b
>> > > 4000 -e 1 -v 5 -p 10000 -b 4000 -e 0
>> > > (b) xl sched-rtds -d 1 -v 1 -p 10000 -b 4000 -v 2 -p 10000 -b
>> > > 4000 -e
>> > > 1 -v 5 -p 10000 -b 4000
>> > > I felt that the style (a) is more intuitive and the input
>> > > commands
>> > > have very static pattern, i.e., each vcpu must have -v -p -b -e
>> > > options set.
>> > >
>> > Exactly, I do think that (b) is indeed a better user interface.
>> With the approach (b), what I have in my mind was: if users do not
>> -e option for a vcpu index, the vcpu will have its extratime flag
>> If not-setting -e option for a VCPU means using the current extratime
>> value for the VCPU, then how should users clear the extratime flag
>> a VCPU?
> Yeah, I know... Well, it's an hard interface to get right.
> So, I think, considering how things currently work for budget and
> period, I guess I'm fine with the -e switch taking a 0/1 value.
> I've checked how it was in SEDF, and it was like that in there too
> (see, e.g. commit 1583cdd1fdded49698503a699c5868643051e391).
>> If you look at the -p and -b option for the xl sched-rtds, we will
>> find that users will have to first read both parameters of a VCPU
>> if they only want to change the value for one parameter, either -p or
>> -b. We don't allow users to specify -p or -b without an input value.
> Yes. Which I now remember as something I've never really liked. But
> again, it's an interface which is a bit hard to get right. And it's
> certainly not this patch series' job to change it.
> So, let's stick with it. Thanks for bearing with me. :-)
No problem at all. :-)
I also checked the SEDF scheduler's commands while I was working on
this patch version.
I felt that keeping the same format for the -p, -b and -e options is a
> I now want to bring something new on the table, though: what should the
> default be?
> I mean, what do we expect most people to want, e.g., at domain creation
> time, if they don't include an 'extratime=1' in their config file
> (actually, I don't think it's even possible to do that! :-O) ?
> I believe that --kind of unlikely wrt what happens in the real-time
> research and papers-- most users would expect a work conserving
> scheduler, unless they specify otherwise.
> As in, they hopefully will enjoy being able to reserve some CPU
> bandwidth in a very precise and deterministic way, for their vCPUs. But
> I don't think they see as a good thing the fact that those vCPUs stops
> running at some point, even if the system is idle.
> Also, I think we really should set dom0 to be in extratime mode.
> Therefore, I think I would set extratime as on by default in both Xen
> an xl. What do you think?
Right now, the domain is created with its VCPUs' extratime flag on. So
by default, extratime is set on in Xen.
I'm not sure what do you suggest setting the extratime flag on by default in xl?
Did you mean if users do not input -e option, the extratime flag will
be set as on?
If so, users may get confused IMHO. Some users may think not setting
-e option indicating clear the extratime flag, while some who
carefully read the instruction of the commands know the xl set the
extratime flag by default if -e option is not provided.
PhD Candidate in Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania
Xen-devel mailing list