|   | 
      | 
  
  
      | 
      | 
  
 
     | 
    | 
  
  
     | 
    | 
  
  
    |   | 
      | 
  
  
    | 
         
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors?	(RE:[Xen-ia64-dev
 
| 
To:  | 
"Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>,	"Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Subject:  | 
RE: [Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors?	(RE:[Xen-ia64-devel] SAL INFO virtualization) | 
 
| 
From:  | 
"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Date:  | 
Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:06:07 +0100 | 
 
| 
Cc:  | 
xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,	xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,	Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Delivery-date:  | 
Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:49 -0700 | 
 
| 
Envelope-to:  | 
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
 
| 
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:  | 
AcZXuYK0ne7FxazRSBOeDFMpHsl5NwAYvkYgAAF02OA= | 
 
| 
Thread-topic:  | 
[Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors?	(RE:[Xen-ia64-devel] SAL INFO virtualization) | 
 
 
 
> I understand and sympathize with the need for dom0 to 
> sometimes get and use information from each processor that is 
> only available if dom0 is running on each processor.
> 
> However, AFAIK, SMP guests are always gang-scheduled, correct?
No, there's no need to strictly gang schedule, and the current scheduler makes 
no attempt to do so. It may generally be a decent thing to do, though.
> (If not, aren't there some very knotty research issues 
> related to locking and forward progress?)
You could end up preempting a vCPU holding a lock which could lead to daft 
behaviour of naïve spin locks. A number of possible workarounds have been 
prototyped, but since it doesn't seem to be much of a problem in practice 
nothing has been checked in.
> So on a 16-processor system, every time dom0 needs to run 
> (e.g. to handle backend I/O for any one of perhaps hundreds 
> of domains), *every* domain gets descheduled so that dom0 can 
> be (gang-)scheduled on all 16 processors?
> 
> If true, this sounds like a _horrible_ performance hit, so I 
> hope I'm misunderstanding something...
This isn't an issue.
After booting you probably want dom0 to give up all but 1 vCPU anyway.
Ian
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
 
 |   
 
| <Prev in Thread] | 
Current Thread | 
[Next in Thread>
 |  
- RE: [Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors?	(RE:[Xen-ia64-devel] SAL INFO virtualization),
Ian Pratt <=
 
 
 |  
  
 | 
    | 
  
  
    |   | 
    |