Hi, This patch fixes xmexamples about example of cpus. Signed-off-by: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu.com> Best regards, Kan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Masaki Kanno wrote:> Hi, > > This patch fixes xmexamples about example of cpus. > > Signed-off-by: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu.com> > > Best regards, > KanHi Kanno, We have tried cpus="^1" in the past. For we want to drop only CPU1 no matter how many CPUs are on the machine. The result shows: CPU1 can still be used by HVM and all the VCPU''s affinity are "any cpu". So, do you think this setting is available? Or do we need some more comments on this? Thanks! Thanks, Zhang Jingke _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Fri, 9 May 2008 13:20:37 +0800, "Zhang, Jingke" wrote:>Masaki Kanno wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch fixes xmexamples about example of cpus. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu.com> >> >> Best regards, >> Kan > >Hi Kanno, > We have tried cpus="^1" in the past. For we want to drop only CPU1 >no matter how many CPUs are on the machine. The result shows: CPU1 can >still be used by HVM and all the VCPU''s affinity are "any cpu". > So, do you think this setting is available? Or do we need some more >comments on this? Thanks!Hi Zhang, I think that a purpose to set "cpus" is to confine CPUs which VCPUs run to a CPU or some CPUs. If there are many CPUs on a machine, I think that we should avoid the setting for performance. Best regards, Kan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >Hi Kanno, > > We have tried cpus="^1" in the past. For we want to drop onlyCPU1> >no matter how many CPUs are on the machine. The result shows: CPU1can> >still be used by HVM and all the VCPU''s affinity are "any cpu". > > So, do you think this setting is available? Or do we need some > more > >comments on this? Thanks! > > Hi Zhang, > > I think that a purpose to set "cpus" is to confine CPUs which VCPUsrun> to a CPU or some CPUs. If there are many CPUs on a machine, I think > that we should avoid the setting for performance.The "^1" syntax is quite useful if you''re trying to reserve a CPU for use by another domain e.g. domain0, but don''t want to otherwise restrict the guest. We need to be able to deal with setting the affinity mask for a domain (that is replicated to all VCPUs) as for individual VCPUs. I assume your patch doesn''t change the behaviour of the former? BTW, it would also be nice to be able to specify CPUs by node.socket.core.thread as opposed to just enumerated CPU number. It should be possible to omit unused levels of the hierarchy, e.g. "0.3" could be used to refer to the 4th core of the first socket on a dual socket quad core machine. If you''re looking for further improvements in this area, enable CPU groups to be defined and then allow domains/VCPUs to be assigned to a group. Thanks, Ian> > Best regards, > Kan > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Hi Ian, Fri, 9 May 2008 13:07:31 +0100, "Ian Pratt" wrote:>> >Hi Kanno, >> > We have tried cpus="^1" in the past. For we want to drop only CPU1 >> >no matter how many CPUs are on the machine. The result shows: CPU1 can >> >still be used by HVM and all the VCPU''s affinity are "any cpu". >> > So, do you think this setting is available? Or do we need some more >> >comments on this? Thanks! >> >> Hi Zhang, >> >> I think that a purpose to set "cpus" is to confine CPUs which VCPUs run >> to a CPU or some CPUs. If there are many CPUs on a machine, I think >> that we should avoid the setting for performance. > >The "^1" syntax is quite useful if you''re trying to reserve a CPU for >use by another domain e.g. domain0, but don''t want to otherwise restrict >the guest."cpus" is parsed from left side, and the "^1" negates the values which was already parsed. So "0-3,^1,1" and "0-3" are equivalent. The parsing of "cpus" cannot handle "negation" from a beginning because there is not a value to negate. But, I''m thinking that I want to implement Zhang''s demand since I get your comment. So I have idea as follows. cpus = "0:,^1" The "0:" means "0 or later". How about it?>We need to be able to deal with setting the affinity mask for a domain >(that is replicated to all VCPUs) as for individual VCPUs. I assume your >patch doesn''t change the behaviour of the former?Could you look at the following changest? http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg/rev/5c3df1bded82>BTW, it would also be nice to be able to specify CPUs by >node.socket.core.thread as opposed to just enumerated CPU number. It >should be possible to omit unused levels of the hierarchy, e.g. "0.3" >could be used to refer to the 4th core of the first socket on a dual >socket quad core machine. > >If you''re looking for further improvements in this area, enable CPU >groups to be defined and then allow domains/VCPUs to be assigned to a >group.I got interest for your suggestion. Let me think for the time being. Best regards, Kan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Masaki Kanno wrote:> Hi Ian, > > Fri, 9 May 2008 13:07:31 +0100, "Ian Pratt" wrote: > >>>> Hi Kanno, >>>> We have tried cpus="^1" in the past. For we want to drop only >>>> CPU1 no matter how many CPUs are on the machine. The result shows: >>>> CPU1 can still be used by HVM and all the VCPU''s affinity are "any >>>> cpu". So, do you think this setting is available? Or do we need >>>> some more comments on this? Thanks! >>> >>> Hi Zhang, >>> >>> I think that a purpose to set "cpus" is to confine CPUs which VCPUs >>> run to a CPU or some CPUs. If there are many CPUs on a machine, I >>> think that we should avoid the setting for performance. >> >> The "^1" syntax is quite useful if you''re trying to reserve a CPU for >> use by another domain e.g. domain0, but don''t want to otherwise >> restrict the guest. > > "cpus" is parsed from left side, and the "^1" negates the values which > was already parsed. So "0-3,^1,1" and "0-3" are equivalent. > The parsing of "cpus" cannot handle "negation" from a beginning > because there is not a value to negate. > > But, I''m thinking that I want to implement Zhang''s demand since I get > your comment. So I have idea as follows. > > cpus = "0:,^1" > > The "0:" means "0 or later". How about it? >Hi Kanno, I think a "non-boundary" range may be needed to define the expression. How about this: "x-", means from CPUx to the last CPU. For example, "0-" means 0 or later. "-x", means from CPU0 to CPUx, for example, "-3" means "0,1,2,3". Thank you!> >> We need to be able to deal with setting the affinity mask for a >> domain (that is replicated to all VCPUs) as for individual VCPUs. I >> assume your patch doesn''t change the behaviour of the former? > > Could you look at the following changest? > > http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg/rev/5c3df1bded82 > > >> BTW, it would also be nice to be able to specify CPUs by >> node.socket.core.thread as opposed to just enumerated CPU number. It >> should be possible to omit unused levels of the hierarchy, e.g. "0.3" >> could be used to refer to the 4th core of the first socket on a dual >> socket quad core machine. >> >> If you''re looking for further improvements in this area, enable CPU >> groups to be defined and then allow domains/VCPUs to be assigned to a >> group. > > I got interest for your suggestion. Let me think for the time being. > > > Best regards, > KanThanks, Zhang Jingke _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Mon, 12 May 2008 09:10:24 +0800, "Zhang, Jingke" wrote:>Masaki Kanno wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> Fri, 9 May 2008 13:07:31 +0100, "Ian Pratt" wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Kanno, >>>>> We have tried cpus="^1" in the past. For we want to drop only >>>>> CPU1 no matter how many CPUs are on the machine. The result shows: >>>>> CPU1 can still be used by HVM and all the VCPU''s affinity are "any >>>>> cpu". So, do you think this setting is available? Or do we need >>>>> some more comments on this? Thanks! >>>> >>>> Hi Zhang, >>>> >>>> I think that a purpose to set "cpus" is to confine CPUs which VCPUs >>>> run to a CPU or some CPUs. If there are many CPUs on a machine, I >>>> think that we should avoid the setting for performance. >>> >>> The "^1" syntax is quite useful if you''re trying to reserve a CPU for >>> use by another domain e.g. domain0, but don''t want to otherwise >>> restrict the guest. >> >> "cpus" is parsed from left side, and the "^1" negates the values which >> was already parsed. So "0-3,^1,1" and "0-3" are equivalent. >> The parsing of "cpus" cannot handle "negation" from a beginning >> because there is not a value to negate. >> >> But, I''m thinking that I want to implement Zhang''s demand since I get >> your comment. So I have idea as follows. >> >> cpus = "0:,^1" >> >> The "0:" means "0 or later". How about it? >> > >Hi Kanno, > I think a "non-boundary" range may be needed to define the >expression. How about this: > "x-", means from CPUx to the last CPU. For example, "0-" means 0 or >later. > "-x", means from CPU0 to CPUx, for example, "-3" means "0,1,2,3". > Thank you!Hi Zhang, Sounds good. I will make a patch with your idea. Best regards, Kan>>> We need to be able to deal with setting the affinity mask for a >>> domain (that is replicated to all VCPUs) as for individual VCPUs. I >>> assume your patch doesn''t change the behaviour of the former? >> >> Could you look at the following changest? >> >> http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg/rev/5c3df1bded82 >> >> >>> BTW, it would also be nice to be able to specify CPUs by >>> node.socket.core.thread as opposed to just enumerated CPU number. It >>> should be possible to omit unused levels of the hierarchy, e.g. "0.3" >>> could be used to refer to the 4th core of the first socket on a dual >>> socket quad core machine. >>> >>> If you''re looking for further improvements in this area, enable CPU >>> groups to be defined and then allow domains/VCPUs to be assigned to a >>> group. >> >> I got interest for your suggestion. Let me think for the time being. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Kan > > > >Thanks, >Zhang Jingke > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel