Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion

[Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 14:24 +0100 on 28 Jul (1248791073), Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Does strict partitioning of CPUs like this satisfy everyone's
> > requirements?  Bearing in mind that 
> > 
> >  - It's not work-conserving, i.e. it doesn't allow best-effort
> >    scheduling of pool A's vCPUs on the idle CPUs of pool B.
> > 
> >  - It restricts the maximum useful number of vCPUs per guest to the size
> >    of a pool rather than the size of the machine. 
> > 
> >  - dom0 would be restricted to a subset of CPUs.  That seems OK to me
> >    but occasionally people talk about having dom0's vCPUs pinned 1-1 on 
> >    the physical CPUs.
> 
> You don't have to define other pools. You can just live with the default pool
> extended to all cpus and everything is as today.

Yep, all I'm saying is you can't do both.  If the people who want this
feature (so far I count two of you) want to do both, then this
solution's good not enough, and we should think about that before going
ahead with it.

Cheers,

Tim.

-- 
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd.
[Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.]

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