qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Migration convergence - a suggestion


From: Ronen Hod
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Migration convergence - a suggestion
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:47:23 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111115 Thunderbird/8.0

On 12/20/2011 03:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/20/2011 01:06 AM, Ronen Hod wrote:
Well the issue is not new, anyhow, following a conversation with Orit ...

Since we want the migration to finish, I believe that the "migration speed"
parameter alone cannot do the job.
I suggest using two distinct parameters:
1. Migration speed - will be used to limit the network resources utilization 2. aggressionLevel - A number between 0.0 and 1.0, where low values imply
minimal interruption to the guest, and 1.0 mean that the guest will be
completely stalled.

In any case the migration will have to do its work and finish given any actual migration-speed, so even low aggressionLevel values will sometimes imply that
the guest will be throttled substantially.

The algorithm:
The aggressionLevel should determine the targetGuest%CPU (how much CPU time we
want to allocate to the guest)

QEMU has no way to limit the guest CPU time.

Wouldn't any "yield" (sleep / whatever) limit the guest's CPU time, be it in qemu or in KVM. My intention is to suggest an algorithm that is based on guest throttling. Looking at the relevant BZs, I do not see how we can avoid it. I certainly have no claims regarding the architecture. Avi and mst, believe that it is better to continuously control the guest's CPU from the outside (libvirt) using cgroups. Although less responsive to changes, it should still work. In the meantime, I also discovered that everybody has a different point of view regarding the requirements. Regardless, I believe that the same basic mechanics (once decided), can do the work
Some relevant configuration "requirements" are:
1. Max bandwidth
2. Min CPU per guest
3. Max guest stall time
4. Max migration time
These requirements will often conflict, and may imply changes in behavior over time.

I would also suggest that the management GUI will let the user select the aggression-level (or whatever), and display the implication on all the other parameters (total-time, %CPU) based on the current behavior of the guest and network.

Regards, Ronen


Regards,

Anthony Liguori




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]