On 07/16/2010 06:06 PM, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:45:43 -0700
> Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:30:35 +0100
>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 06/15/2010 03:49 AM, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:37:30 +0100
>>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/10/2010 03:13 AM, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, BUG_ON is only triggered if booting more than 32 VCPUs on
>>>>>> a *very old* xen (pre xen 3.1.0).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at code closely, we could just set setup_max_cpus to 32
>>>>>> some where in xen function, perhaps even in xen_vcpu_setup().
>>>>>> That way later in smp_init() it would just be ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing tho, the per cpus areas are already setup at that
>>>>>> point, so that would need to be cleaned. BTW, I don't
>>>>>> understand why have_vcpu_info_placement is set to 0 in
>>>>>> xen_guest_init()?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> xen_guest_init is used by the pvhvm path, and hvm domains don't
>>>>> have a notion of vcpu info placement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What minimum version of xen is required to run pvops kernel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In theory it should be back-compatible for all Xen 3, but in
>>>>> practice it tweaks lots of bugs in older Xens (particularly
>>>>> 32-on-64). I don't know that anyone has definitively established
>>>>> an earliest version. I implemented vcpu info placement for use
>>>>> in pvops kernels, but it was never my intention that it be an
>>>>> absolute requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> J
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, attached patch without BUG_ON. Please feel free to modify
>>>> to your liking also.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It looks like you smashed all the tabs into spaces so its hard to
>>> see what you've changed in the diff. I'll fix it up and give it a
>>> look-over.
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>> Sorry, I've tabs turned off because patches I submit to other product
>> I work on must be tab free. Anyways, re attached a new one with tabs.
>>
>> thanks again,
>> Mukesh
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Just curious, did this patch ever make it?
>
Probably not. Looks like I forgot to tag it as "mail containing patch"
so it fell through the cracks.
J
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home