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] [PATCH] For running Xen on a 32-way system

To: "Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh" <aravindh.puthiyaparambil@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] For running Xen on a 32-way system
From: "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:35:54 +0100
Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:36:00 +0000
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/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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcU/BirZG93DCljFTwqOb3uf7Za4AAAKxuRQ
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] For running Xen on a 32-way system
> Here is a patch to get Xen running on a 32-way Unisys ES7000 system.
> Please note that this patch alone is not sufficient to do 
> this. You will also need the clustered APIC patch that I will 
> be submitting soon. But since this patch was to a general 
> area in Xen I decided to submit it separately. I think this 
> patch will be required to get Xen running on any system that 
> has more than 16 CPUs. 

Thanks for the patch.

> Here are the following things I did along with the questions I have:
> 
> 1. I bumped up NR_CPUS to 32 in include/asm-x86/config.h. Is 
> this value high enough? I know there are some big systems out 
> there. Should this be bumped up to 64 or 128?

We'll need to create a cpu_set_t for storing cpu bit maps and audit the
code -- there are currently a bunch of assumptions that the bitmap will
fit in a long.

> 2. Increasing the value of NR_CPUS caused the system to die 
> while bringing up the 17th CPU. Digging into this I found 
> that the GDT limit was hard coded for a 16-way. To fix this I 
> had to increase the value of NR_RESERVED_GDT_ENTRIES in 
> include/public/arch-x86_xx.h. (I am assuming that 
> NR_RESERVED_GDT_ENTRIES is set by the formula 2*NR_CPUS+8 for
> x86_32 and 4*NR_CPUS+8 for x86_64) It seems that there is no 
> correlation between the two headers, arch-x86_xx.h and 
> config.h. For now I have explained the correlation with a 
> comment. Should this correlation be checked somehow at compile time?

Good spot.

> Will this patch be useful or would it be over kill?

I think large SMP should be a compile time option for the moment. The
important thing to get right is that the hypervisor interface shouldn't
need to change. (I know a couple of the 'long' assumptions are in the
public API, and need fixing). Patches welcome :-)

Thanks,
Ian




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

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