On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:00:21AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
>
>
> On 07/20/2011 09:11 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
> > +static int
> > +qemuGetVcpusBWLive(virDomainObjPtr vm, virCgroupPtr cgroup,
> > + unsigned long long *period, long long *quota)
> > +{
> > + virCgroupPtr cgroup_vcpu = NULL;
> > + qemuDomainObjPrivatePtr priv = NULL;
> > + int rc;
> > + int ret = -1;
> > +
> > + priv = vm->privateData;
> > + if (priv->nvcpupids == 0 || priv->vcpupids[0] == vm->pid) {
> > + /* We do not create sub dir for each vcpu */
> > + rc = qemuGetVcpuBWLive(cgroup, period, quota);
> > + if (rc < 0)
> > + goto cleanup;
> > +
> > + if (*quota > 0)
> > + *quota /= vm->def->vcpus;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> Are you sure the above is correct? Based on my earlier suggestion,
> <quota> is always specified as the amount of runtime afforded to a
> single vcpu. Hence, if you are changing quota to cover for all of a
> vm's vcpus, wouldn't you want to:
>
> *quota *= vm->def->vcpus;
This is a good example of why I think the current design is flawed
and needs separate limits explicitly tracked, one for the VM as
a whole, and another for individual VCPUs. The per-VCPU limit
would then simply be unsupported for the case of a QEMU without
vCPU threads, but the per-VM limit could still be used.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list