From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zhigang Wang Subject: Re: Cpu pools discussion Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:29:43 +0800 Message-ID: <4A6F97F7.3080303@oracle.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Tim Deegan , George Dunlap , Dan Magenheimer , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Juergen Gross List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Keir Fraser wrote: > On 28/07/2009 16:29, "Dan Magenheimer" wrote: > >> Currently this is done with pinning, but pinning >> does restrict the flexibility of a multi-vcpu VM. >> Affinity seems like it should help, but affinity >> doesn't restrict the VM from running on a non-affinitive >> pcpu (does it?) > > Yes it does. VCPUs only run on PCPUs in their affinity masks. > > -- Keir > > I'm wondering is there some performance difference between these two scenario: 1) vcpu0 pinned to pcpu0, vcpu1 pinned to pcpu1. 2) vcpu0 and vcpu1 affined to pcpu0 and pcpu1 but not pinned. Currently we have to explicitly pin *every* vcpu to get true hard partitioning. We are seeking for a better solution, whether it will be in the hypervisor or just user space tools. But seems the cpu pool concept is attractive. thanks, zhigang