* Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:14:16AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > > Perhaps it should be a VM level option. And then invert the notion. > > Create one idle domain w/out hlt trap. Give that VM a vcpu per pcpu > > (pin in place probably). And have that VM do nothing other than hlt. > > Then it's always runnable according to scheduler, and can "consume" the > > extra work that CFS wants to give away. > > That's not sufficient. Lets we have 3 guests A, B, C that need to be > rate limited to 25% on a single cpu system. We create this idle guest > D that is 100% cpu hog as per above definition. Now when one of the > guest is idle, what ensures that the idle cycles of A is given only > to D and not partly to B/C? Yeah, I pictured priorties handling this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
