[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: large system support - 128 CPUs
>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 13.08.08 10:26 >>> >On 13/8/08 09:22, "Tim Deegan" <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> At 09:21 +0100 on 13 Aug (1218619274), Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Both seem to be hacks to get to 128 CPUs, without consideration of how >>> to go beyond that >> >> I think the shadow_page_info one is a general fix for my implicit >> assumption that sizeof(cpumask_t) == sizeof (long). > >Do some fields after the cpumask need to line up in both structures? Placing >a dummy cpumask in the shadow_page structure might make most sense. > >For the other one I'll have to think a bit. The need for GDT entries per CPU >currently obviously means scaling much past a few hundred CPUs is going to >be difficult. But the cpumask-in-page_info is a scalability concern, too - systems with many CPUs will tend to have a lot of memory, and the growing overhead of the page_info array may become an issue then, too. Page clustering may be an option to reduce/eliminate the growth, though I didn't spend much thought on this or possible alternatives. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |