From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: xen/arm: Domain not fully destroyed when using credit2 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:40:31 +0100 Message-ID: <1485265231.32103.65.camel@citrix.com> References: <58871C790200007800133268@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <1485262392.32103.52.camel@citrix.com> <1485263974.32103.61.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2798870077188253946==" Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta6.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cW1L0-00078A-00 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:40:42 +0000 In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Sender: "Xen-devel" To: Julien Grall , Jan Beulich Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , George Dunlap , Andrew Cooper , Ian Jackson , Tim Deegan , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============2798870077188253946== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Is+UflFKRi+Ls5PLvUwf" --=-Is+UflFKRi+Ls5PLvUwf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 13:24 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > On 24/01/17 13:19, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > How are Dom0 vCPUs pinned, exclusively (i.e., there are 2 pCPUs on > > which _only_ Dom0 and _no_ DomU can run)? >=20 > I have dom0_vcpu_pins on Xen command line option (so I guess only=C2=A0 > pinned?), no further configuration for DOM0. >=20 Ok, thanks. Yeah, that means Dom0 vCPU 0 is pinned to pCPU 0, and vCPU 1 is pinned to pCPU 1. And it's not excluside, i.e., other domains can run on pCPUs 0 and 1, if the scheduler decides so (because they're free, because the scheduler decides to preempt Dom0, etc). This is of course fine, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding the setup. > > So, when you say "no interrupt traffic", do you perhaps mean that > > SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ is rarely (never!) raised for idle pCPUs? Or are > > you > > really talking about actual interrupts (either inter-processor or > > not)? >=20 > I am talking about actual physical interrupts. The traffic is reduced > to=C2=A0 > none with credit2 on idle pCPU. >=20 Ah, wow... And how --forgive my naiveness-- do you measure / check that? Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-Is+UflFKRi+Ls5PLvUwf 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 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJYh1lPAAoJEBZCeImluHPug9IQAJDBdbVZfrK7MAPj5pKpefYa NCvmK6pTdFCbsBf65xt1nrBQYJiEGukVOftOjnWevMhZnad3F6rA49QXSbX9tqME 4s+LH0LQxTF/kNrASu/n5bfEfREeuhsLsuGH0r8A1eR9D12U4PMJXbf44txusJ+5 kiTtWmmVlf0PSnd13mgVp3DZtjvfa8tJPDEDw7zWxHdItbXWCckqB4BAfhc3JaK2 2M96qZWt4hCKXx3llAlsN0sXZgUspjxexQYAW1JSAJPxPzfpY31zrezNbHSQrKrj v11gFNWUmsz/rUeK7f8refTwcBURfm9Fxl6E9cB5ZQR7CvJmLGq2XXDSc1gSkcZm kcQSEkYAfDD/wySn++fLClo/5gFvSjxa9CnlpQIAMpGbIysmq92Jjynw3tF3caVH z+5mawrHjhr/twFveRwYIGe3Mxqlo9cb7cfjeVjGqKMfLD7C6oV9qkl4MeFEBvZJ mAm4f22bShFwhbolFIMOwlwg4XY6ivcc6iOZtG5NJg5YZrIIMXqIfSI7PKD7HyEP GAGgcEAyca2+uqR5klUA+bmDzqElraczfgZAO7uXBrTwyL/1zy571yT3SSRyIP1Z qfu5fWRAO0OsLZr7F1S5rbJmpSGdkgjp4hAz6JUKZ+3jY5MLtoou/VLF4pxHiLuI Tk6YfWh/EGR/PHevSPpv =3Rkd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Is+UflFKRi+Ls5PLvUwf-- --===============2798870077188253946== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVuLm9yZwpodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLnhlbi5v cmcveGVuLWRldmVsCg== --===============2798870077188253946==--