On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:38:05AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > > All guest are of equal priorty in this case (that's how we are able to divide > > time into 25% chunks), so unless we dynamically boost D's priority based on how > > idle other VMs are, its not going to be easy! > > Right, I think there has to be an external mgmt entity. Because num > vcpus is not static. So priorities have to be rebalanaced at vcpu > create/destroy time. and at idle/non-idle time as well, which makes the mgmt entity's job rather harder? Anyway, if we are willing to take a patch to burn cycles upon halt (as per Marcello's patch), that's be the best (short-term) solution ..otherwise, something like a filler-thread per-vcpu is more easier than dynamic change of priorities .. - vatsa -- 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
