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] "cpus" config parameter broken?

To: "dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] "cpus" config parameter broken?
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:53:47 +0000
Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:54:25 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080110174315406.00000003216@djm-pc>
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: AchRkyjajMDoVQVpQRWI8qTGrlL9cgABaF9AAFMFs1AAA9YWgwAwdYQQAAUX2kQAAE0noAACC6lUAAAz/oAAAYJBbgAAFC5AAAA6f2AAAEgmwAABvKAUAABdKnAAAb+Zog==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] "cpus" config parameter broken?
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
On 11/1/08 00:43, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Though it could be argued academically that "policy" doesn't
> belong in the hypervisor, rejecting an attempt by the tools
> to use a non-available processor isn't much different than
> rejecting an SSE3 instruction on a non-SSE3 processor.
> (In other words, it's really processor enforcement mechanism.)
> So I like #2.  #1 would be OK too.  I just don't like the
> current muddle which has already led to misunderstandings
> and inconsistent implementations in the current toolchain.

Yes, probably we should not return an error if ANDing with online_map
returns an empty set, and instead we should do some fallback (like ignore
affinity altogether). This is what we would have to do in a cpu hot-unplug
case, where that unplugged cpu was the only cpu in some vcpu's affinity map.
Either that or fail the CPU hot-unplug, I suppose.

 -- Keir



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