|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors? (RE:[Xen-ia64-dev
To: |
"Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors? (RE:[Xen-ia64-devel] SAL INFO virtualization) |
From: |
"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:06:07 +0100 |
Cc: |
xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:06:49 -0700 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Thread-index: |
AcZXuYK0ne7FxazRSBOeDFMpHsl5NwAYvkYgAAF02OA= |
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors? (RE:[Xen-ia64-devel] SAL INFO virtualization) |
> I understand and sympathize with the need for dom0 to
> sometimes get and use information from each processor that is
> only available if dom0 is running on each processor.
>
> However, AFAIK, SMP guests are always gang-scheduled, correct?
No, there's no need to strictly gang schedule, and the current scheduler makes
no attempt to do so. It may generally be a decent thing to do, though.
> (If not, aren't there some very knotty research issues
> related to locking and forward progress?)
You could end up preempting a vCPU holding a lock which could lead to daft
behaviour of naïve spin locks. A number of possible workarounds have been
prototyped, but since it doesn't seem to be much of a problem in practice
nothing has been checked in.
> So on a 16-processor system, every time dom0 needs to run
> (e.g. to handle backend I/O for any one of perhaps hundreds
> of domains), *every* domain gets descheduled so that dom0 can
> be (gang-)scheduled on all 16 processors?
>
> If true, this sounds like a _horrible_ performance hit, so I
> hope I'm misunderstanding something...
This isn't an issue.
After booting you probably want dom0 to give up all but 1 vCPU anyway.
Ian
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: [Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical processors? (RE:[Xen-ia64-devel] SAL INFO virtualization),
Ian Pratt <=
|
|
|
|
|