From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukesh Rathor Subject: Re: [PATCHEs]: support more than 32 VCPUs in guests Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:08:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20100609170825.06a67ff9@mantra.us.oracle.com> References: <20100609160920.1445fbbe@mantra.us.oracle.com> <4C102742.3010108@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C102742.3010108@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Jan, "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:44:02 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 06/09/2010 04:09 PM, Mukesh Rathor wrote: > > Jeremy, pv ops is OK as it is on 128 vcpus, but I reworked the > > xen_vcpu_setup() a little to address more than 32vcpus on xen that > > doesn't have vcpu placement. Please take a look. > > > > Why BUG_ON if the number of cpus is too high? Why not just ignore the > excess ones? > > J Yeah, that was my first thought also... but then i realized i couldn't just ignore the excess cpus in that function, but would need to go back and fixup all the cpu_present, cpu_online, etc maps (and any assoc data structs, if any), and it just didn't seem worth it in the 2.6.18* kernels at least. Would have been easier to do if the vcpu setup function returned a value instead of being void. The 2.6.18 kernel will BUG_ON() somewhere right now with excess cpus anyways, so it is not a regression in that sense :)... thanks, Mukesh