Mailing List Archive: Xen: Devel

sched params spurious error message (Was: Re: 4.2 TODO / Release Status)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Ian.Campbell at citrix

May 8, 2012, 3:45 AM

Post #1 of 4 (70 views)
Permalink

sched params spurious error message (Was: Re: 4.2 TODO / Release Status)

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 10:34 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> * xl compatibility with xm:
> [...]
> * [BUG] does not honour scheduler weight params, reported
> by Dieter Bloms in <20120423193518.GA16134 [at] bloms>,
> Dieter's patch has been accepted. (DONE, However see
> next bug...)
> * [BUG] Spurious CPU params error message when starting a
> domain, e.g. "Cpu weight out of range, valid values are
> within range from 1 to 65535". This is an issue with
> Dieter Bloms' patch to honour scheduler params.

Is anyone looking into this?

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel [at] lists
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

dieter at bloms

May 8, 2012, 3:56 AM

Post #2 of 4 (66 views)
Permalink

Re: sched params spurious error message (Was: Re: 4.2 TODO / Release Status) [In reply to]

Hi,

On Tue, May 08, Ian Campbell wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 10:34 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > * xl compatibility with xm:
> > [...]
> > * [BUG] does not honour scheduler weight params, reported
> > by Dieter Bloms in <20120423193518.GA16134 [at] bloms>,
> > Dieter's patch has been accepted. (DONE, However see
> > next bug...)
> > * [BUG] Spurious CPU params error message when starting a
> > domain, e.g. "Cpu weight out of range, valid values are
> > within range from 1 to 65535". This is an issue with
> > Dieter Bloms' patch to honour scheduler params.
>
> Is anyone looking into this?

I've made a little patch to set this value to 256 when it wasn't defined
in the configfile, but George Dunlap didn't like it (rightly).
I'm sorry, my skill is not enough to implement a reasonable solution for
this issue :(
Maybe we should revert my patch as long as there isn't a fix.

--
Best regards

Dieter

--
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
From field.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel [at] lists
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

George.Dunlap at eu

May 8, 2012, 5:35 AM

Post #3 of 4 (63 views)
Permalink

Re: sched params spurious error message (Was: Re: 4.2 TODO / Release Status) [In reply to]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Dieter Bloms <dieter [at] bloms> wrote:
>> > * [BUG] Spurious CPU params error message when starting a
>> > domain, e.g. "Cpu weight out of range, valid values are
>> > within range from 1 to 65535". This is an issue with
>> > Dieter Bloms' patch to honour scheduler params.
>>
>> Is anyone looking into this?
>
> I've made a little patch to set this value to 256 when it wasn't defined
> in the configfile, but George Dunlap didn't like it (rightly).
> I'm sorry, my skill is not enough to implement a reasonable solution for
> this issue :(
> Maybe we should revert my patch as long as there isn't a fix.

No, I think having the ability to set it is important. You can mark
this "George will do it if no one else steps up". :-)

Thanks for your help, Dieter.

-George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel [at] lists
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Ian.Campbell at citrix

May 8, 2012, 5:50 AM

Post #4 of 4 (61 views)
Permalink

Re: sched params spurious error message (Was: Re: 4.2 TODO / Release Status) [In reply to]

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 13:35 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Dieter Bloms <dieter [at] bloms> wrote:
> >> > * [BUG] Spurious CPU params error message when starting a
> >> > domain, e.g. "Cpu weight out of range, valid values are
> >> > within range from 1 to 65535". This is an issue with
> >> > Dieter Bloms' patch to honour scheduler params.
> >>
> >> Is anyone looking into this?
> >
> > I've made a little patch to set this value to 256 when it wasn't defined
> > in the configfile, but George Dunlap didn't like it (rightly).
> > I'm sorry, my skill is not enough to implement a reasonable solution for
> > this issue :(
> > Maybe we should revert my patch as long as there isn't a fix.
>
> No, I think having the ability to set it is important. You can mark
> this "George will do it if no one else steps up". :-)

You've got yerself a deal ;-)

> Thanks for your help, Dieter.

Yes, thanks!

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel [at] lists
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads