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

[Xen-devel] IRQ balancing within the hypervisor

To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] IRQ balancing within the hypervisor
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 10:46:49 +0100
Delivery-date: Mon, 31 May 2010 02:48:08 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
While pirq_guest_bind() makes a (lame) attempt at setting a new IRQ's
affinity reasonably, subsequent adjustments to the (supposedly)
handling vCPU's processor assignment as well as any domain specified
vCPU affinity changes don't have any effect on the IRQ's affinity, not
the least because there's neither a hypercall interface to allow the
handling domain to inform Xen of its (virtual) affinity, nor a scheduler
interface to adjust the affinity when the vCPU placement changes.

On large and/or heavily NUMA systems it may be quite desirable to
get this changed - are there any plans, or was this considered/
discussed in the past and rejected for some reason?

Thanks, Jan


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>