Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4 of 4] Support new xl command cpupool-nu

To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4 of 4] Support new xl command cpupool-numa-split
From:	Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:45:11 +0100
Cc:	"xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Thu, 09 Dec 2010 01:46:18 -0800
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=ts.fujitsu.com; i=juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; q=dns/txt; s=s1536b; t=1291887913; x=1323423913; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; z=Message-ID:=20<4D00A527.7070505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>\|Date:=20 Thu,=2009=20Dec=202010=2010:45:11=20+0100\|From:=20Juergen =20Gross=20<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>\|MIME-Version: =201.0\|To:=20Ian=20Campbell=20<Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >\|CC:=20"xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20<xen-devel@list s.xensource.com>\|Subject:=20Re:=20[Xen-devel]=20[PATCH=20 4=20of=204]=20Support=20new=20xl=20command=09cpupool-numa -split\|References:=20<f31333fe3b3553c90419.1290755427@mer ano1.osd.mch.fsc.net>=09<1291806978.13966.4529.camel@zaka z.uk.xensource.com>=09<4CFF7812.4050506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> =09<1291813922.13966.4553.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> =09<4CFF8569.4010104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>=09<1291815484.13966. 4555.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>=09<4CFF8B04.8080305@ts .fujitsu.com>=20<1291817544.13966.4557.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxx source.com>\|In-Reply-To:=20<1291817544.13966.4557.camel@z akaz.uk.xensource.com>\|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit; bh=9Lng2LLkqhXYeO1CUaa+Q5QdxL2n2NbkocjYPq4V5ZY=; b=jJL+s6JasCxPLKVWob+i4TdzETK3Y11owkNHwbaYdaH1JSavyQz32r90 FCnkfpgzkn8hlnAGF59WU2sJqDZ5i0WnTt2WYJBJwDljsgJmY+CGBLAgA aeHyxsF5GwywwDnHUR5hUVWyUSidW97UmFMGnUJwq5QxQaVI8FQG2usJF sRDl3G3XGIC3rKyw3TefaaBjtWerYK0+rXcxoc3u3Ig+jHGrnlrfn/p5V dax8qua7N1Ie4QIgTrj+i68A/3eUT;
Domainkey-signature:	s=s1536a; d=ts.fujitsu.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-SBRSScore:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-IronPort-AV: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization: User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=PJb/yHBsTL4Sj9RB7cO257ne48FCrkIHkN1GwKhn0jQmsv9dX+QX2JMo gg45mJzK4FttUOqjkEAl3lC/3sK+YAatPhEY7up/OSNKu8mt5OuERtWmu gtJrElIdVcCGLuRROAlJIizaDXFBlZAoEz8Dwy7swu0I+Ofj/qTeAt762 xX6tOb5DHXDTzpqEvkrMogqKrW3hIZ8i3gIRF3CLY14nEUNgz/Y4Huq3y XVgfAkxG2mHFxuNYmRfBodZEdOMbH;
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<1291817544.13966.4557.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Organization:	Fujitsu Technology Solutions
References:	<f31333fe3b3553c90419.1290755427@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1291806978.13966.4529.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4CFF7812.4050506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1291813922.13966.4553.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4CFF8569.4010104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1291815484.13966.4555.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4CFF8B04.8080305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1291817544.13966.4557.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101030 Iceowl/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.10

On 12/08/10 15:12, Ian Campbell wrote:

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 13:41 +0000, Juergen Gross wrote:

On 12/08/10 14:38, Ian Campbell wrote:

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 13:17 +0000, Juergen Gross wrote:

On 12/08/10 14:12, Ian Campbell wrote:

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:20 +0000, Juergen Gross wrote:

On 12/08/10 12:16, Ian Campbell wrote:

Can this loop be merged with the preceding loop, with the body being the
else case of the if?


No. I have to add new cpus first to avoid a cpupool without cpus in between.


ok.

I was thinking that because this function only gets here if there is a
single pool that all CPUs must be in that pool -- but that's not
actually true is it? Even if that were the common case there's nothing
to enforce that.


Perhaps I should add a comment to avoid a problem later...


That would certainly help.

The alternative would be to bail out if all cpus are not associated with
Pool-0, not just when there are>   1 pools. That would be consistent with
the function only acting on the default configuration.


I suspect NUMA systems are subject to cpu hot plug...


And hotplugged CPUs don't automatically go into Pool-0?


I just checked it: they ARE added to Pool-0.

This rises another problem: it would be nice to adjust the NUMA
splitting after a hot-plug of a cpu...
An "update" option to xl cpupool-numa-split would be appropriate,
I think. It should move cpus from Pool 0 to the correct node pools
and create new node pools if necessary.

I'll prepare another patch later...


Juergen

--
Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
TSP ES&S SWE OS6                       Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967
Fujitsu Technology Solutions              e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Domagkstr. 28                           Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-80807 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4 of 4] Support new xl command cpupool-numa-split