All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephan Diestelhorst <sd386@cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Alan Greenspan <alan@egenera.com>
Subject: Re: RE: [Xen-users] Xen 3.0 Dom0 Smp enable?
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:31:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <42F7970B.30407@cl.cam.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A95E2296287EAD4EB592B5DEEFCE0E9D2829ED@liverpoolst.ad.cl.cam.ac.uk>

>>Certainly it will be easier to do so in xend, but I'm more

>>concerned with the hypervisor being responsible responsible 
>>for choosing the vcpu to cpu mapping.  I'd like to see dom 
>>creation support the passing of a cpumap and have the 
>>hypervisor cycle through the physical cpus marked therein.  
>>This would remove the logic of mapping vcpus to cpus from the 
>>hypervisor and let the dom creation tools build whatever 
>>algorithm for distributing vcpus across cpus as it sees fit.
>>    
>>
>
>Sure - feel free to remove the logic from Xen. It's simply there because
>until recently xend didn't know about number of hyperthreads, cores,
>sockets etc.
>
>  
>
I always thought that the so called logic in createdom is not very
clever and really doesn't belong there, although it has improved! It is
basically just something to get the domain going. Finer control is based
on xm pincpu. It would be more reasonable to give Xen a cpumask, already
when creating the domain. Rather than creating it and then setting the
cpumask immediatelly with xm pincpu...

>The default should be to give Xen considerable freedom in how it
>schedules VCPUs to CPUs: Stephan's load balancer is almost ready for
>posting.
>
>We should have some higher-level allocation control that can be tweaked
>in xend e,g, "don't use hyperthreading", "allow only privileged domains
>to use the 1st hyperthread on each CPU", "allow any logical CPU to be
>used by any VCPU". [All additionally subject to cpu-dedicate
>restrictions]
>  
>
Which could IMHO all expressed at a lower level (i.e. towards Xen) with
the cpumask.

>Does it actually need a change to the hypercall interface? The domain
>builder can just issue a pin for each VCPU. It might be cleaner to
>remove the orignal CPU field, but that's such a small change we should
>just do it anyway.
>  
>
I think the passing of the cpumask needs a little change in the code.

>We could remove the current default allocation code from Xen.
>  
>
Absolutely true.

Stephan

  reply	other threads:[~2005-08-08 17:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-08-08 17:04 [Xen-users] Xen 3.0 Dom0 Smp enable? Ian Pratt
2005-08-08 17:31 ` Stephan Diestelhorst [this message]
2005-08-08 18:24 ` Ryan Harper
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-08-08 18:57 Ian Pratt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=42F7970B.30407@cl.cam.ac.uk \
    --to=sd386@cl.cam.ac.uk \
    --cc=alan@egenera.com \
    --cc=m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk \
    --cc=ryanh@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.