[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: large system support - 128 CPUs
Keir Fraser wrote: > 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. Yes, there is a check that a field of page_info and a field of the shadow_page_info are at the same offset. Both compile time checks are in private.h > > 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. Yes, would like something better here. And as I said, we don't know yet that just adding the additional page solves anything. Bill > > -- Keir > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |