[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xend: Add multiple cpumasks support
> > Either Keir's cpu[X] = "Y" approach or my cpu = [ "A","B","C" ] approach > > seem workable. > > Your last email seemed to indicate to me that you didn't like using > quoted values in a list to separate per-vcpu cpumask values. Maybe I > was mistaken. If it's an honest python list I have no problem. Your example appeared to be some quoting within a string. > > Keir's approach is rather ill defined if someone tries using both cpu= > > and cpu[X]= in the same config file, but I don't see that as a big > > problem. Take your pick :-) > > I'm leaning toward the list notation since I already have code that > parses that properly. My approach is a list too... > > BTW: does the right thing happen in the face of vcpu hot plugging? i.e. > > if I unplug a vcpu and put it back in do I keep the old mask? If I add > > vcpus what mask do they get? > > unplug events only affect a vcpu's status. The internal struct > vcpu in the hypervisor is not de-allocated/re-allocated during hotplug > events. > > We don't currently support a hotadd for vcpus that weren't allocated at > domain creation time. The current method for simulating hot-add would > be to start a domain with 32 VCPUS and disable all by the number of > vcpus you currently want. Ryan Grimm posted a patch back in February > that had xend do this by adding a new config option, max_vcpus, which > was used when calling xc_domain_max_vcpus() having the hypervisor alloc > that max number of vcpus and then using the vcpus parameter to determine > how many to bring online. I like the idea of having a vcpus_max > > We should probably add a 'vcpu-pin' variant that enables the mask to be > > set for all vcpus. Perhaps '-1' for the vcpu number? Or should we add > > 'vcpu-pin-all'? > > vcpu-pin using -1 is probably the quickest, least intrusive method to > get this behavior. We could also use a keyword, all for instance: > > xm vcpu-pin vm1 all 0-4,^5 Nice. > > [secondly, what do you think about implicitly defaulting the mask to all > > 1's if the first item in a cpu mask is an exclusion? e.g. ^1] > > That makes sense. I'll include a patch in the set to add this behavior. Thanks, Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |