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

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 Jun 2005, at 23:18, Ryan Harper wrote:

> > Let me put it this way: I reserve the right in future to change my 
> > mind
> > and free the vcpu info structures for vcpus that are down (and
> > re-allocate when they come back up). If I do that then you will not 
> > get
> > info about them via hypercalls. There's no good reason to return info
> > about them -- you can infer they are 'down'/non-existent from their
> > absence -- so why bother?
> It seemed nicer/easier/cheaper (to me) to mark up/down in the dominfo
> hypercall rather than issue MAX_VIRT_CPUS vcpucontext hypercalls.
Setting vcpu_to_cpu[vcpu] to -1 for down vcpus sounds sensible to me. 
Then you only need to issue vcpucontext calls for vcpus for which 
vcpu_to_cpu[] >= 0.
If it might also be possible to have vcpus that aren't down, but also 
aren;t allocated to a cpu right now for some reason, we probably want 
two invalid values to distinguish the two cases. Perhaps the latter 
situation doesn't make sense though, in which case we can ignore it.
 -- Kier


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