From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] xen: add real time scheduler rt Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:00:14 +0200 Message-ID: <1409828414.2673.172.camel@Solace.lan> References: <1408921125-21470-1-git-send-email-mengxu@cis.upenn.edu> <1408921125-21470-2-git-send-email-mengxu@cis.upenn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2142216284919203302==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Meng Xu Cc: Ian Campbell , Sisu Xi , Stefano Stabellini , George Dunlap , Chenyang Lu , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Linh Thi Xuan Phan , Meng Xu , Jan Beulich , Chao Wang , Chong Li , Dagaen Golomb List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============2142216284919203302== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-IOMWHhuV/K8dNnuav3c4" --=-IOMWHhuV/K8dNnuav3c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On mer, 2014-09-03 at 22:11 -0400, Meng Xu wrote: > =E2=80=8BSo let's first settle down the approach of setting/getting vcpus= , > (either one vcpu at a time or all batched vcpus.)=E2=80=8B >=20 >=20 > =E2=80=8BWhat do you guys think about the approach of setting/getting vcp= us? > which approach do you prefer? Can we vote for it? (or maybe there > exist some other ways to reach agreement? :-))=E2=80=8B >=20 I'm not a fan of voting for this kind of things. :-) I think we were close to nail it down in previous messages within this thread. George said, in <> (where 3 is the array with a variable number of elements, i.e., only relative to the affected vcpus, and 1 is the full array, with 0-s [or whatever else] for 'don't touch this') It's hard to be sure, but I'm leaning toward the full array (so 1, in Meng's list in that email). In fact, I expect parameters to be set for all the vcpus at, or immediately after, domain creation and, if something has to change at some point, it's quite likely that it will involve most (if not all) the vcpus (possibly, to different params, of course). I also do not expect for that to happen too frequently. 1 also looks to me, although potentially inefficient, rather easier to use and implement. E.g., immagine a toolstack --different from xl (and perhaps even different than libxl)-- which has to live in a Dom0 with limited support for dynamic memory allocations (are we thinking embedded or not :-P). With 1, it can just prepare a static array a go with it, while 3 may cause problems. So, yes, I think I'd go for 1. Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-IOMWHhuV/K8dNnuav3c4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEABECAAYFAlQIRj4ACgkQk4XaBE3IOsSj3QCfS/+6AmS6MXqv401/wwj4wh1N ywwAnjOwmAfKSJjUgAVfFddenwe5Yzlj =fiDC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-IOMWHhuV/K8dNnuav3c4-- --===============2142216284919203302== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============2142216284919203302==--