Re: [Xen-devel] "cpus" config parameter broken?

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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