RE: [Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain

To:	"Daniel Hulme" <dh286@xxxxxxxxx>, "Diwaker Gupta" <diwaker.lists@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: [Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain
From:	"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:23:51 +0100
Cc:	Miguel Filipe <miguel.filipe@xxxxxxxxx>, ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:22:21 +0000
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help:	<mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcWPAl4TKUmml3OcQE6U9M94oP7oewACW/qg
Thread-topic:	[Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain

> > >  If that's true, there wouldn't be SMP for domains, since 
> they are 
> > > assossiated with only one VPU.
> > 
> > I thought SMP support for guests was still not functional. AFAIK, 
> > domains are still pinned to a single CPU. Am I wrong?
> You are correct. Btw, VPU is a term you just made up, so 
> don't read too much into it.

This is untrue for the unstable/3.0 tree: SMP guests are true SMP.

Ian

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-users

RE: [Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain