search for: max_virt_cpus

...use >> for Atsushi''s issue. >No, we don''t create extra domains. Therefore it there are more CPUs >than >VCPUs, something goes wrong... > Yes, there''s only one idle domain now. However I''m not sure why something will go wrong when NR_CPUS > MAX_VIRT_CPUS. As long as you want to wake up an AP, you have to go through do_boot_cpu where idle_vcpu will be created. The only drawback is that some physical cpus will not be waken up by "max_cpus = MAX_VIRT_CPUS" you mentioned in another thread. That needs to be fixed which however shouldn'...

...>No, we don''t create extra domains. Therefore it there are more >CPUs >> >than >> >VCPUs, something goes wrong... >> >> Yes, there''s only one idle domain now. However I''m not sure >> why something will go wrong when NR_CPUS > MAX_VIRT_CPUS. >bvt has per VCPU data. if #VCPU > #MAX_VIRT_CPUS, bvt >reads/writes beyond the >bounds! > >Tristan. OK, I see. Thanks, Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

>From: Keir Fraser >Sent: 2006年4月21日 14:41 > > >On 21 Apr 2006, at 02:31, Atsushi SAKAI wrote: > >> But the logical limit of the IA64 Max CPU is larger than 64. >> If someone change these values, some possibility make this error >again. >> >> To avoid this problem, I believe this check code should be exists. > >See how we solve this on x86 near

...se their proper counterparts in include/acpi/actbl*.h instead. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> --- a/xen/arch/ia64/xen/dom_fw_common.c +++ b/xen/arch/ia64/xen/dom_fw_common.c @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ struct fake_acpi_tables { struct acpi_table_header dsdt; uint8_t aml[8 + 11 * MAX_VIRT_CPUS]; struct acpi_table_madt madt; - struct acpi_table_lsapic lsapic[MAX_VIRT_CPUS]; + struct acpi_madt_local_sapic lsapic[MAX_VIRT_CPUS]; uint8_t pm1a_event_block[4]; uint8_t pm1a_control_block[1]; uint8_t pm_timer_block[4]; @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ dom_fw_fake_acpi(domain_t *d, struct fak struct...

...struct xenctl_cpumap ctlmap; cpumask_t cpumap; XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint8) cpumap_bitmap; @@ -482,6 +482,20 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xe break; } break; + + case XENPF_get_cpu_freq: + if ( op->u.get_cpu_freq.vcpu >= MAX_VIRT_CPUS || + !(v = current->domain->vcpu[op->u.get_cpu_freq.vcpu]) ) + { + ret = -EINVAL; + break; + } + + op->u.get_cpu_freq.freq = cpufreq_cpu_policy[v->processor] ? + cpufreq_cpu_policy[v->processor]->cur : 0; +...

...4-30 17:06:55 -07:00 +++ b/freebsd-5.3-xen-sparse/i386-xen/i386-xen/evtchn.c 2005-04-30 17:06:55 -07:00 @@ -31,8 +31,9 @@ static int evtchn_to_irq[NR_EVENT_CHANNELS]; static int irq_to_evtchn[NR_IRQS]; -/* IRQ <-> VIRQ mapping. */ -static int virq_to_irq[NR_VIRQS]; +static int virq_to_irq[MAX_VIRT_CPUS][NR_VIRQS]; +static int ipi_to_evtchn[MAX_VIRT_CPUS][NR_VIRQS]; + /* Reference counts for bindings to IRQs. */ static int irq_bindcount[NR_IRQS]; @@ -120,7 +121,7 @@ mtx_lock(&irq_mapping_update_lock); - if ( (irq = virq_to_irq[virq]) == -1 ) + if ( (irq = PCPU_GET(virq_to_ir...

Hi, I''m trying to boot up with lot more than 32 vcpus on this very large box. I overcame vcpu_info[MAX_VIRT_CPUS] by doing vcpu placement hypercall in guest, but now running into evt channel limit (lots of devices): unsigned long evtchn_pending[sizeof(unsigned long) * 8]; which limits to 512 max for my 64bit dom0. The only recourse seems to create a new struct shared_info_v2{}, and re-arrange it a b...

I''ve put together two patches. The first introduces a new dom0_op, set_max_vcpus, which with an associated variable and a check in the VCPUOP handler fixes [1]bug 288. Also included is a new VCPUOP, VCPUOP_create, which handles all of the vcpu creation tasks and leaves initialization and unpausing to VCPUOP_initialize. The separation allows for build-time allocation of vcpus which

...} @@ -225,7 +222,8 @@ map_domain_va_pae( void *guest_va, int perm) { - unsigned long l3e, l2e, l1e, l2p, l1p, p, va = (unsigned long)guest_va; + uint64_t l3e, l2e, l1e, l2p, l1p, p; + unsigned long va = (unsigned long)guest_va; uint64_t *l3, *l2, *l1; static void *v[MAX_VIRT_CPUS]; @@ -380,12 +378,12 @@ map_domain_va( if (!paging_enabled(&ctxt[cpu])) { static void * v; - unsigned long page; + uint64_t page; if ( v != NULL ) munmap(v, PAGE_SIZE); - page = to_ma(cpu, page_array[va >> PAGE_SHIFT]); +...

...a/xen/common/domain.c Fri Aug 22 10:45:19 2008 +0100 +++ b/xen/common/domain.c Mon Dec 01 23:52:14 2008 -0800 @@ -534,6 +534,9 @@ static void complete_domain_destroy(stru sched_destroy_domain(d); + /* Free page used by xen oprofile buffer. */ + free_xenoprof_pages(d); + for ( i = MAX_VIRT_CPUS-1; i >= 0; i-- ) if ( (v = d->vcpu[i]) != NULL ) free_vcpu_struct(v); _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Under windows 2003 x64, a call to KeGetCurrentProcessorNumber is returning 256 in the ISR for my GPL PV drivers... Xen''s MAX_VIRT_CPUS is defined as 32 under this architecture, so when I go to look up the per cpu data for that interrupt, we crash and burn. I''m going to mask it with 31 for now (I''m just testing under UP), but this doesn''t sound like an ideal solution... I''m running Xen 3.1.1 on...

These two patches were originally part of the XSM series that I have posted, and remain prerequisites for that series. However, they are independent of the XSM changes and are a useful simplification regardless of the use of XSM. The Acked-bys on these patches were provided before rebasing them over the copyback changes in 26268:1b72138bddda, which had minor conflicts that I resolved. [PATCH

Can find documented how many CPUS can Xen support and how many Virtual Machines per CPU are allowed? Can someone please supply this info? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Supported--of-CPUs-VMs-per-CPUs-tf2278842.html#a6329630 Sent from the Xen - Dev forum at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com

...e.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/xen/interface.h @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE(void); DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE(uint64_t); DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE(uint32_t); DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_pfn_t); +DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_ulong_t); /* Maximum number of virtual CPUs in multi-processor guests. */ #define MAX_VIRT_CPUS 1 diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c index ba5cc13..f28fc1a 100644 --- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c +++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <xen/platform_pci.h> #include <xen/xenbus.h> #include <xen/page.h> +#include <xen/xen-ops.h...

...+#define VIRQ_MCA_CMC VIRQ_ARCH_1 /* MCA cmc interrupt */ +#define VIRQ_MCA_CPE VIRQ_ARCH_2 /* MCA cpe interrupt */ + +/* Maximum number of virtual CPUs in multi-processor guests. */ +/* keep sizeof(struct shared_page) <= PAGE_SIZE. + * this is checked in arch/ia64/xen/hypervisor.c. */ +#define MAX_VIRT_CPUS 64 + +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ + +#define INVALID_MFN (~0UL) + +union vac { + unsigned long value; + struct { + int a_int:1; + int a_from_int_cr:1; + int a_to_int_cr:1; + int a_from_psr:1; + int a_from_cpuid:1; + int a_cover:1; + int a_bsw:1; + long reserved:57; + }; +}; + +union vdc { + unsign...

...+#define VIRQ_MCA_CMC VIRQ_ARCH_1 /* MCA cmc interrupt */ +#define VIRQ_MCA_CPE VIRQ_ARCH_2 /* MCA cpe interrupt */ + +/* Maximum number of virtual CPUs in multi-processor guests. */ +/* keep sizeof(struct shared_page) <= PAGE_SIZE. + * this is checked in arch/ia64/xen/hypervisor.c. */ +#define MAX_VIRT_CPUS 64 + +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ + +#define INVALID_MFN (~0UL) + +union vac { + unsigned long value; + struct { + int a_int:1; + int a_from_int_cr:1; + int a_to_int_cr:1; + int a_from_psr:1; + int a_from_cpuid:1; + int a_cover:1; + int a_bsw:1; + long reserved:57; + }; +}; + +union vdc { + unsign...

I''m working on a new hypercall, do_confer, which allows the directed yielding of a vcpu to another vcpu. It is mainly used when a vcpu fails to acquire a spinlock, yielding to the lock holder instead of spinning. I ported the ppc64 spinlock implementation for the i386 linux portion. In implementing the hypercall, I''ve been trying to figure out how to get the scheduler

...domain_flags); + v->vcpu_info = (void *)&d->shared_info->compat.vcpu_info[0]; if ( nr_pages != (unsigned int)nr_pages ) nr_pages = UINT_MAX; @@ -735,7 +736,7 @@ int construct_dom0(struct domain *d, /* Mask all upcalls... */ for ( i = 0; i < MAX_VIRT_CPUS; i++ ) - d->shared_info->vcpu_info[i].evtchn_upcall_mask = 1; + shared_info(d, vcpu_info[i].evtchn_upcall_mask) = 1; if ( opt_dom0_max_vcpus == 0 ) opt_dom0_max_vcpus = num_online_cpus(); Index: 2006-10-04/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c ==============================...

Hi all, this small patch series implement guest SMP support for ARM, using the ARM PSCI interface for secondary cpu bringup. Stefano Stabellini (4): xen/arm: basic PSCI support, implement cpu_on xen/arm: support for guest SGI xen/arm: support vcpu_op hypercalls xen: move VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info to common code xen/arch/arm/domain.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++

This series implements ballooning for Xen on ARM and builds and Mukesh''s PVH privcmd stuff to implement foreign page mapping on ARM, replacing the old "HACK: initial (very hacky) XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_foreign" patch. The baseline is a bit complex, it is basically Stefano''s xenarm-forlinus branch (commit bbd6eb29214e) merged with Konrad''s linux-next-pvh branch