[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: PATCH: dom_rid_bits command line parameter


  • To: "Tristan Gingold" <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Williamson, Alex (Linux Kernel Dev)" <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
  • From: "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:52:33 -0700
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:53:17 -0700
  • List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcZf06m2CR2TlficQUC8E+qdI5tf9wCjLrtA
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: PATCH: dom_rid_bits command line parameter

> > Should dom_rid_bits < 18 be allowed?  Architecturally the
> > answer is no, but if all guests support it, a system adminstrator
> > might choose to make the tradeoff (worse performance in each
> > domain for more concurrent domains).
> It is useless to allow it unless you redefine 
> IA64_MIN_IMPL_RID_BITS.  This is 
> due to:
> 
> if (ridbits < IA64_MIN_IMPL_RID_BITS)
>               ridbits = IA64_MIN_IMPL_RID_BITS;

That's exactly what I was suggesting.  A paravirtualized
Linux/ia64 might reasonably expect IA64_MIN_IMPL_RID_BITS
to be less than the architectural minimum so that the
rid space can be partitioned differently.

Dan

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.