[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
xentrace buffer size, maxcpus and online cpus
- To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 09:58:59 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; strato.com; arc=none; dkim=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1685433547; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=strato.com; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Cc:Date:From:Subject:Sender; bh=48SLYBKwuJ1qGErn4ucN0izxxjzjGz4onuRxZLQh++Q=; b=TuaDSn6oj3ELd7ichlbzvvscVHYrJ4f5qISLA47HHrb9kk6WlCbmiUUDii9YyGoQI/ 54TI5xiF8pdUetPo9zlH0JyR40ZXnY+mNGaEMSIbyoC2lopGaPiBI+BKGfy8k6TWA7OT zHRRQvTqa0lgZfX1XudYwQO4S8eRSe1CZii56NyOU780asNMxs+coplraLzHjW9G1VBI BwT980FsXdDDpGZJAlTy8zdJyrDB0THLP4GD6SCGZK9mPnIX3xM5G/iiviq+sD7a5IUy GE/wcqN9fkxZL062WZAdgbx5vBdYpA05PyBRo4RtkzCjZYE53VAKZ+/biNBHyIySbUfr Ho1g==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1685433547; cv=none; d=strato.com; s=strato-dkim-0002; b=Uk3c7AFdFuaLjxlaw1li65Z5pN+m1Vxmd75qBMXxEcGu3Ni6SJFUyzeN5i0OPaDcNG dD7ykNkenSFcz2jDBzLENQNfBxWgjc0P1E35cYnviS+41zc8l7SK+/AbWkNUw10d9Q8g UJTtgr9VZsKk+prRnJaQADqbcPclpqmLwUSa7tJaGgLQEBQ9A1xYvhvlqHIRkzjF173P eB1zVaINdLHXUvyYj6ITVuKK/xObmph+zDaw2geK6lGqSQ7UPfxm3aAY2lcaoMhv2Qte 4HUtlKfi6TpRy11rb0AgE03g9pfrKLNnIWIZRyA0QCHHMnoNqvi/s+xr5taJXUOBeXFN 9pBg==
- Delivery-date: Tue, 30 May 2023 07:59:18 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
While looking again through calculate_tbuf_size after a very long time,
I was wondering why the code uses nr_cpu_ids instead of num_online_cpus.
In case Xen was booted with maxcpus=N, would it be safe to use N as
upper limit? I think this would increase the per-cpu buffer size for
each active pcpu, and as a result more events could be captured.
Olaf
Attachment:
pgpXGCG8q7W0c.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
|
