From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Novotny Subject: Re: Question about vcpu_avail Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4B0BF6E0.4070707@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/24/2009 04:05 PM, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 24/11/2009 14:51, "Michal Novotny" wrote: > > >>> We already have a config option for that, called 'vcpus'. 'vcpu_avail' can >>> then be used to limit the number of those which are brought online during >>> initial boot. Any new config-file options can be sugar on top of those. >>> >>> >> Well, imagine scenario you need to allocate 4 vcpus to the guest but you >> need to use only 2 vcpus at startup. So you suggest having `vcpus` and >> `maxvcpus` options in the config file and allocating all the `maxvcpus` >> and setting number of `vcpus` by setting appropriate mask using >> `vcpu_avail` ? >> > Yeah, I think you get it. In your example: if the user specifies maxvcpus=4, > vcpus=2 then xm turns that into vcpus=4, vcpu_avail=3 before sending it to > xend. > > -- Keir > > Right, so, you mean that I should implement it into `xm` command itself and not XenD ? Well, what about people using eg. libvirt with upstream Xen? This way it should not be working since XM is not used... right? Thanks, -- Michal > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >