[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: xl: fix broken cpupool-numa-split


  • To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:01:52 +0100
  • Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:03:08 -0800
  • 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=MtsPAGoAIOSXFZsyCP7bc0gDcTiiCgySo6/Y2DvQ5U+1cRwwNn8GuCTT 2i9skl0Om/6YtGEp9DD/uh0BLhAkslJ17SancZqVp1Q1jHr11+NHc5ROd j2mmBOYzfsK08YvIHOMP8AwXLdSV+ldBI90+nP3OuJpJmK62jbui74j8d wHjOTKAY+12ObcUInb34vt2UYwE5ZSk5I74ZbOKJ0yLVdKrx2wyWBmtWI W/HBD5FU4heKE1bebccwXMMWdfTY4;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

On 01/28/11 11:53, George Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:26 AM, Juergen Gross
<juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On 01/27/11 22:36, Andre Przywara wrote:

Hi,

the implementation of xl cpupool-numa-split is broken. It basically
deals with only one poolid, but there are two to consider: the one from
the original root CPUpool, the other from the newly created one.

Uhh, silly copy and paste error! I think it happened when I introduced
libxl_cpupool_cpuadd_node()...
The correction is much easier. The root poolid is always 0. See attached
patch.

Re patch itself: Acked-by: George Dunlap<george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>

Re the cpupool interface:

Hang on; if the root poolid is always 0, why does xc_cpupool_create()
interpret a poolid of 0 as "XEN_SYSCTL_CPUPOOL_PAR_ANY"?  Doesn't that
mean that if you're trying to create a new cpupool from cpus in the
root pool, that you might get cpus from other pools?

No. It just creates a cpupool. As cpupool 0 is always created by the
hypervisor, it can't be created via libxc. So specifying 0 as poolid
selects the next free id.

The cpus are allocated later.


If not, what's the point of the "CPUPOOL_PAR_ANY" parsing?

Perhaps you just don't care which poolid you get?


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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.