From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: Re: [Patch] support of cpu pools in xl Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:58:54 +0200 Message-ID: <4C96EA0E.7090105@ts.fujitsu.com> References: <4C930642.3080802@ts.fujitsu.com> <1284716808.16095.3185.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4C9353EC.1060402@ts.fujitsu.com> <1284724524.16095.3412.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <19603.36623.571453.446278@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1284748120.15518.246.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1284748120.15518.246.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/17/10 20:28, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 16:53 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Patch] support of cpu pools in xl"): >>> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 12:41 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> I just wanted to be able to support some (inactive) cpupools without any >>>> cpu allocated. It's just a number which should normally be large enough. >>> >>> What is the purpose of these inactive cpupools? >> >> Amongst other things, I would guess, the creation or removal of >> cpupools ! "Inactive cpupools" were meant to be cpupools without any cpus and domains assigned to them. They can exist for a short time during creation and removal, but due to explicitly removing all cpus, too. > I don't think so, libxl_create_cpupool returns a new poolid for a newly > created pool, so they are not needed for that. They have a poolid, but there might be more cpupools than cpus in the system. This was the reason for the "+ 32". But I agree, this should be done via a #define. > BTW I noticed that we have libxl_list_pool vs > libxl_{create,destroy}_cpupool and > libxl_cpupool_{cpuadd,cpuremove,movedomain}. I think the interface > should use cpupool throughout and not just pool to make it clear what it > is a pool of. IOW libxl_list_pool should be libxl_list_cpupool, the type > should be called libxl_cpupool and functions such as > libxl_name_to_poolid should instead be libxl_name_to_cpupoolid. Okay, I'll change it. Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems TSP ES&S SWE OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967 Fujitsu Technology Solutions e-mail: juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com Domagkstr. 28 Internet: ts.fujitsu.com D-80807 Muenchen Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html