WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] "cpus" config parameter broken?

To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ian Pratt" <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] "cpus" config parameter broken?
From: "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:10:24 -0700
Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:12:15 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C3AC3595.11F9B%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Reply-to: "dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AchRkyjajMDoVQVpQRWI8qTGrlL9cgABaF9AAFMFs1AAA9YWgwAwdYQQAAUX2kQAAE0noA==
I have blinders on since this discussion started with
my trying to figure out the syntax and semantics for
the "cpus" parameter as used in a config file, but:

> > - the v->cpu_affinity mask should never have bits set for
> 
> This is already the case.

No, with the cpus parameter, it is currently possible to
set bits in v->cpu_affinity mask for processors that don't
exist.

Perhaps this is the real bug then.  I will spin a patch
to implement the modulo behavior from "xm vcpu-set" for
the parsing of the cpus parameter and all will be well.

Thanks,
Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:50 PM
> To: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx; Ian Pratt; 
> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] "cpus" config parameter broken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/1/08 18:38, "Dan Magenheimer" 
> <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > As a logical consequence:
> >
> > - the v->cpu_affinity mask should never have bits set for
> >   processors that don't exist on the current physical system
> >   (although all bits set == "any" is probably an OK exception)
> 
> This is already the case.
> 
> > - the modulo behavior currently implemented in "xm vcpu-pin"
> >   and the config file "cpus" parameter should be removed, and
> 
> Possibly.
> 
> > - if cpu values are specified by "xm vcpu-pin" or "cpus"
> >   beyond the number of physical cpus, the xm command should
> >   fail.
> 
> Again, possibly. I don't see much wrong with a liberal 
> interpretation of
> otherwise incorrect cpu config parameters though. If we 
> tighten things up
> then we need to make it easier to access CPU topology info from within
> domain config files.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> > Agreed?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:17 PM
> >> To: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx; Ian Pratt;
> >> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] "cpus" config parameter broken?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/1/08 18:40, "Dan Magenheimer" 
> <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> My opinion: CPU affinity/restriction should NOT be preserved
> >>> across migration.  Or if it is, it should only be preserved
> >>> when the source and target have the same number of pcpus
> >>> (thus allowing save/restore to work OK).  Or maybe it should
> >>> only be preserved for save/restore and not for migration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Comments? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >>
> >> I agree with that. Unless save/restore is on the same machine
> >> (identified in
> >> some way) or at least has identical CPU topology as far as 
> we can see.
> >> Otherwise some higher-level entity needs to be smart enough
> >> to work out
> >> affinity during restore and issue the correct 'xm' commands
> >> (or equivalent).
> >>
> >>  -- Keir
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel