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] Re: [PATCHEs]: support more than 32 VCPUs in guests

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCHEs]: support more than 32 VCPUs in guests
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:08:25 -0700
Cc: Jan, "Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:09:30 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C102742.3010108@xxxxxxxx>
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>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
References: <20100609160920.1445fbbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C102742.3010108@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:44:02 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 06/09/2010 04:09 PM, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > Jeremy, pv ops is OK as it is on 128 vcpus, but I reworked the 
> > xen_vcpu_setup() a little to address more than 32vcpus on xen that
> > doesn't have vcpu placement. Please take a look.
> >   
> 
> Why BUG_ON if the number of cpus is too high?  Why not just ignore the
> excess ones?
> 
>     J

Yeah, that was my first thought also... but then i realized i couldn't
just ignore the excess cpus in that function, but would need to go back
and fixup all the cpu_present, cpu_online, etc maps (and any assoc data
structs, if any), and it just didn't seem worth it in the 2.6.18* 
kernels at least. Would have been easier to do if the vcpu setup 
function returned a value instead of being void. 

The 2.6.18 kernel will BUG_ON() somewhere right now with excess
cpus anyways, so it is not a regression in that sense :)... 

thanks,
Mukesh


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