Re: [Xen-devel] [v4][PATCH 11/19] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2015/7/6 22:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 06.07.15 at 16:29, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It sounds like part of the problem here is a matter of domains.
> >
> > Jan cares mostly about what happens in the hypervisor.  At the
> > hypervisor level, there is only the per-device configurations, and he is
> > keen that rmrrs be "strict" by default, unless there is an explicit flag
> > to relax it.  (I agree with this, FWIW.)
I can't understand this point.

There's no any default flag/policy in the hypervisor level, and the 
hypervisor doesn't do anything to RMRR by itself.
All actions just take place when xl/xc issue our needed requirements 
according to the rdm setting in .cfg.
> > What we've been arguing about is the xl layer -- what settings should
> > xl/libxl give to the hypervisor, based on what's in the domain config?
> >
> > It sounds like Jan doesn't care a great deal about it, and in any case
> > would defer to the tools maintainers, but that if asked for his advice
> > he would say that the configuration in xl.cfg should act like all the
> > other pci device configurations: that you have a domain-wide default
> > that can be overridden in the per-device setting.
> >
> > I.e.:
> > ---
> > rdm='reserve=strict'
> > pci=[ '02:0.0', '01:1.1,rdm_reserve=relaxed' ]
> > ---
> > Would pass "strict" for the first device, and "relaxed" for the second.
> >
> > Do I understand you both properly, Jan / Tiejun?
> Yes for me.
Looks all guys would like to walk into this way in the case of RMRR, so 
I can follow up this way. ( Maybe the confusion above doesn't matter now? )
Thanks
Tiejun

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel