Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/07/2009 13:51, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I think especially if cpupools are added into the mix then this becomes more
>> attractive than the current approach. The other alternative is to modify the
>> two existing problematic callers to work okay from softirq context (or not
>> need continue_hypercall_on_cpu() at all, which might be possible at least in
>> the case of CPU hotplug). I would be undecided between these two just now --
>> it depends on how easily those two callers can be fixed up.
> 
> I'll try to set up a patch to add a hypervisor domain. Regarding all the
> problems I got with switching cpus between pools (avoid running on the cpu to
> be switched etc.) this solution could make life much easier.

I'm inclined actually to think a hypervisor domain is not necessary, and we
can get by with softirqs. I actually think cpu offline can be reimplemented
without softirqs or continue_hypercall_on_cpu(), and I would imagine cpupool
changes then could use a similar technique. I will take a look at that, and
you can take your cues from it if I find an elegant solution along those
lines.

> And George would be happy to see all the borrow cpu stuff vanish :-)

Yes, well I think we can get rid of that, regardless of a decision regarding
hypervisor domains. And we get rid of vcpu_lock_affinity too, which is nice.

 -- Keir



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