skip to main content
10.1145/2576195.2576199acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesveeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Virtual asymmetric multiprocessor for interactive performance of consolidated desktops

Published:01 March 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents virtual asymmetric multiprocessor, a new scheme of virtual desktop scheduling on multi-core processors for user-interactive performance. The proposed scheme enables virtual CPUs to be dynamically performance-asymmetric based on their hosted workloads. To enhance user experience on consolidated desktops, our scheme provides interactive workloads with fast virtual CPUs, which have more computing power than those hosting background workloads in the same virtual machine. To this end, we devise a hypervisor extension that transparently classifies background tasks from potentially interactive workloads. In addition, we introduce a guest extension that manipulates the scheduling policy of an operating system in favor of our hypervisor-level scheme so that interactive performance can be further improved. Our evaluation shows that the proposed scheme significantly improves interactive performance of application launch, Web browsing, and video playback applications when CPU-intensive workloads highly disturb the interactive workloads.

References

  1. Sun virtual desktop infrastructure software. http://www.sun.com/software/vdi/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI). White paper of VMware.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. K. Adams and O. Agesen. A comparison of software and hardware techniques for x86 virtualization. In Proc. of ASPLOS, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. O. Agesen, J. Mattson, R. Rugina, and J. Sheldon. Software techniques for avoiding hardware virtualization exits. In Proc. of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. AMD. AMD64 virtualization codenamed "pacifica" technology: Secure virtual machine architecture reference manual, May 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. C. Bienia, S. Kumar, J. P. Singh, and K. Li. The PARSEC benchmark suite: characterization and architectural implications. In Proc. of PACT, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. G. Blake, R. G. Dreslinski, T. Mudge, and K. Flautner. Evolution of thread-level parallelism in desktop applications. In Proc. of ISCA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. P. M. Chen and B. D. Noble. When virtual is better than real. In Proc. of HotOS, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. L. Cherkasova, D. Gupta, and A. Vahdat. Comparison of the three CPU schedulers in Xen. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., 35 (2): 42--51, 2007. ISSN 0163-5999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. J. Duda and D. R. Cheriton. Borrowed-virtual-time (BVT) scheduling: Supporting latency-sensitive threads in a general-purpose scheduler. In Proc. of SOSP, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Y. Etsion, D. Tsafrir, and D. G. Feitelson. Process prioritization using output production: Scheduling for multimedia. ACM TOMCCAP, 2 (4): 318--342, 2006. ISSN 1551-6857. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. K. Flautner and T. Mudge. Vertigo: Automatic performance-setting for linux. In Proc. of OSDI, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. K. Flautner, R. Uhlig, S. Reinhardt, and T. Mudge. Thread-level parallelism and interactive performance of desktop applications. In Proc. of ASPLOS, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. P. Goyal, X. Guo, and H. M. Vin. A hierarchical cpu scheduler for multimedia operating systems. In Proc. of OSDI, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Gupta, L. Cherkasova, R. Gardner, and A. Vahdat. Enforcing performance isolation across virtual machines in Xen. In Proc. of Middleware, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. T. Jones, A. C. Arpaci-Dusseau, and R. H. Arpaci-Dusseau. Antfarm: Tracking processes in a virtual machine environment. In Proc. of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D. Kim, H. Kim, M. Jeon, E. Seo, and J. Lee. Guest-aware priority-based virtual machine scheduling for highly consolidated server. In Proc. of Euro-Par, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. Kim, H. Lim, J. Jeong, H. Jo, and J. Lee. Task-aware virtual machine scheduling for I/O performance. In Proc. of VEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. Kim, H. Lim, J. Jeong, H. Jo, J. Lee, and S. Maeng. Transparently bridging semantic gap in cpu management for virtualized environments. JPDC, 71 (6): 758--773, 2011. ISSN 0743-7315. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. Kim, J. Jeong, J. Hwang, J. Lee, and S. Maeng. Scheduler support for video-oriented multimedia on client-side virtualization. In Proc. of MMSys, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. H. Kim, S. Kim, J. Jeong, J. Lee, and S. Maeng. Demand-based coordinated scheduling for SMP VMs. In Proc. of ASPLOS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Love. Linux Kernel Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, 3rd edition, 2010. ISBN 0672329468, 9780672329463. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. P. B. Menage. Adding generic process containers to the linux kernel. In Proc. of OLS, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Mercer, S. Savage, and H. Tokuda. Processor capacity reserves: operating system support for multimedia applications. In Proc. of ICMCS, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Nieh and M. S. Lam. A SMART scheduler for multimedia applications. ACM TOCS, 21 (2): 117--163, 2003. ISSN 0734-2071. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. Nielsen. Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999. ISBN 156205810X. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. L. Poettering. Cleaning up the linux desktop audio mess. In Proc. of OLS, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J. Rhee, A. Kochut, and K. Beaty. Deskbench: Flexible virtual desktop benchmarking toolkit. In Proc. of IM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. C. Saez, M. Prieto, A. Fedorova, and S. Blagodurov. A comprehensive scheduler for asymmetric multicore systems. In Proc. of EuroSys, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. B. Shneiderman. Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. ACM Comput. Surv., 16 (3): 265--285, Sept. 1984. ISSN 0360-0300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. G. Somani and S. Chaudhary. Application performance isolation in virtualization. In Proc. of CLOUD, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. R. Uhlig, G. Neiger, D. Rodgers, A. L. Santoni, F. C. M. Martins, A. V. Anderson, S. M. Bennett, A. Kagi, F. H. Leung, and L. Smith. Intel virtualization technology. Computer, 38 (5): 48--56, 2005. ISSN 0018-9162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. VMware. VMware Infrastructure 3: VDI server sizing and scaling, May 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. VMware, Inc. VMware vSphere 4: The CPU scheduler in VMware ESX 4.1. Technical report, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. VMware Inc. Enabling your end-to-end virtualization solution. http://www.vmware.com/solutions/partners/alliances/hp-vmware-customers.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. C. A. Waldspurger and W. E. Weihl. Lottery scheduling: Flexible proportional-share resource management. In Proc. of OSDI, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. C. A. Waldspurger and E. Weihl. W. Stride scheduling: Deterministic proportional- share resource management. Technical report, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. T. Yang, T. Liu, E. D. Berger, S. F. Kaplan, and J. E. B. Moss. Redline: first class support for interactivity in commodity operating systems. In Proc. of OSDI, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. N. Zeldovich and R. Chandra. Interactive performance measurement with vncplay. In Proc. of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. H. Zheng and J. Nieh. RSIO: Automatic user interaction detection and scheduling. In Proc. of SIGMETRICS, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Virtual asymmetric multiprocessor for interactive performance of consolidated desktops

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    VEE '14: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS international conference on Virtual execution environments
    March 2014
    236 pages
    ISBN:9781450327640
    DOI:10.1145/2576195

    Copyright © 2014 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 1 March 2014

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    VEE '14 Paper Acceptance Rate18of56submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate80of235submissions,34%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader