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

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCHEs]: support more than 32 VCPUs in guests

To: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCHEs]: support more than 32 VCPUs in guests
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:49:52 -0700
Cc: "Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:50:43 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100609170825.06a67ff9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20100609160920.1445fbbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C102742.3010108@xxxxxxxx> <20100609170825.06a67ff9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.4
On 06/09/2010 05:08 PM, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
>> Why BUG_ON if the number of cpus is too high?  Why not just ignore the
>> excess ones?
>>     
> Yeah, that was my first thought also... but then i realized i couldn't
> just ignore the excess cpus in that function, but would need to go back
> and fixup all the cpu_present, cpu_online, etc maps (and any assoc data
> structs, if any), and it just didn't seem worth it in the 2.6.18* 
> kernels at least. Would have been easier to do if the vcpu setup 
> function returned a value instead of being void. 
>   

Yes, but if have_vcpu_info_placement ends up being false (which is
tested before any other cpus are brought up) then you can simply fail to
online the ones above the limit.

BUG_ON is way too brutal.  You need to fail more softly.

    J

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