Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][RESUBMIT] don't schedule unplugged vcpus

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 Jun 2005, at 22:42, Ian Pratt wrote:

> I don't see why we care about vcpus that are down. From the user's 
> point
> of view they've gone for good -- it just happens that Xen hasn't freed
> the memory in anticipation of it being used again. What do you think?
>
> I'd be inclined just to enter '-1' in the vcpu_to_cpu map. BTW: we 
> could
> make it an s16 rather than s32 at the same time. I think 32,768 CPUs
> should keep be enough for anyone :-)
This is how I view it. We don't free the vcpu structure only because it 
isn't reference counted. We can only be sure that noone has a reference 
to the structure when the entire domain's refcnt falls to zero. Given 
the small amount of memory involved, it's not worth the pain or 
run-time cost of adding per-vcpu reference counts.
So VCPU_down == invisible outside Xen.

 -- Keir


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