[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 14/15] x86/hyperlaunch: add max vcpu parsing of hyperlaunch device tree
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 14:49:36 -0500
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=apertussolutions.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmarc=pass header.from=<dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1733946580; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=QRMV5mz0I1LKwrGBAt8mQqfHcldiCxpHbNA/ilPHm7A=; b=DeAANlDOKTpQW+ocVsHPFZSoBEpb7I3+j4MCJBEq62bCWCFQgmgUXnIId13VETxJjpwlD5Q/A2txYwVCLUzH+6t1n0q57uoIb+5GmqvppbYL3mGns5n2NoMLV9yjsEgposBj3YZX3e0h8Sgw5IvxLJCYzaAG+t0OYMS/AePtEC0=
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1733946580; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=hOzneaWZo6iyJbmQNns9dpq38N5tkC44ULH9yr+oSlmaZrvFIuyNQqzV6SxCYFc3B+z2LdjZ671goBuVnDEdBL5FsPkwvyyJl8qUYsjyOV/SX+lfGmzp+I+jjoQylimaFioPqhnbgtSsGG9FcGVa/9X6IVt65Vo6stxL27V12M8=
- Cc: jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx, christopher.w.clark@xxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:50:12 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 12/2/24 07:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.11.2024 19:20, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
@@ -617,6 +617,9 @@ int __init construct_dom0(struct boot_domain *bd)
if ( !get_memsize(&dom0_max_size, LONG_MAX) && bd->max_pages )
dom0_size.nr_pages = bd->max_pages;
+ if ( opt_dom0_max_vcpus_max == UINT_MAX && bd->max_vcpus )
+ opt_dom0_max_vcpus_max = bd->max_vcpus;
Isn't this kind of backwards? I.e. aren't you meaning to move us towards
boot-domains?
Prior to domain builder, available construction parameters for dom0 were
exposed as command line parameters. This allowed for boot-time
adjustments to the parameters. With domain builder, there are now two
sources for dom0 construction parameters. Those coming from the device
tree and those coming from the command line. For most x86 platforms, the
device tree parameters can only be constructed prior to booting Xen.
Whereas the command line parameters allow boot-time adjustments, at
least for dom0. That is the thinking at least. Now if there is interest
in being able to retire the command line options, that would definitely
simplify things.
Also, what about the counterpart opt_dom0_max_vcpus_min? That wants to be
controllable from DT too, I would think?
Yes, in theory we will eventually be able to do requested/min/max as
well as cpu pinning/affinity. For now it was requested we focus on
implementing only requested vcpus.
v/r,
dps
|
