[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] arm/dom0less: assign dom0less guests to cpupools
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
- From: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:37:20 +0200
- Cc: bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx, wei.chen@xxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:37:24 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 08.04.22 11:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.2022 10:45, Luca Fancellu wrote:
@@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
/* Per-vCPU buffer size in bytes. 0 to disable. */
uint32_t vmtrace_size;
+ uint32_t cpupool_id;
This could do with a comment explaining default behavior. In particular
I wonder what 0 means: Looking at cpupool_destroy() I can't see that it
would be impossible to delete pool 0 (but there may of course be
reasons elsewhere, e.g. preventing pool 0 to ever go empty) - Jürgen?
Yes, I think destroying of cpupool 0 in a dom0less system should be
prohibited, assuming there is a control domain being able to destroy
a cpupool in a dom0less system.
Main reason is that cpupool 0 has a special role e.g. during domain
destruction (see domain_kill()) and for cpu hotplug operations.
Juergen
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|
