Keir,
The patch is working right. I tested it with windows server 2003 enterprise guest. With the patch guest was running with 16 cpus; without the patch it could only work with 8 cpus and remaining 8 cpus were parked without using.
Thanks & Regards,
Nitin
Linux Open Source Technology Center, Intel Corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mind is like a parachute; it works much better when it's open.
From: Kamble, Nitin A
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:45 AM
To: 'Keir Fraser'
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: cpuid information to hvm guest
Keir,
Alright, I will give it a try.
Thanks & Regards,
Nitin
Linux Open Source Technology Center, Intel Corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mind is like a parachute; it works much better when it's open.
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:15 AM
To: Kamble, Nitin A
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: cpuid information to hvm guest
I applied a patch that does this as changeset 18560.
-- Keir
On 29/9/08 22:30, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How about the following changes to our default HVM CPUID?
Guest_CPUID.1:EBX[23:17] = Host_CPUID.1:EBX[22:16]
Guest_CPUID.1:EBX[16] = 0
Guest_CPUID.4:EAX[31:27] = Host_CPUID.4:EAX[30:26]
Guest_CPUID.4:EAX[26] = 1
Guest_CPUID.1:EDX[28] = Host_CPUID.1:EDX[28]
Basically pass-through HT/multicore support, but specify max-cores-per-package and max-threads-per-package as twice the host values. This deals with the fact our virtual APIC IDs are 2*VCPUID.
-- Keir
On 29/9/08 21:15, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’d be happy, by default, for xend to detect threads-per-socket on the host system and replicate that on guest CPUID. I don’t see how direct pass-through of host CPUID values can work, because for example host LAPIC identifiers may be guest different from guest vLAPIC identifiers. So I won’t apply anything like your original patches, period.
-- Keir
On 29/9/08 18:48, "Kamble, Nitin A" <nitin.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hiding those details by default is a good strategy we’d like to maintain.
[Nitin>] Why do you say it is a good strategy? What are the benefits associated with it?
Furthermore we cannot change CPU-to-LAPIC identifier mapping without breaking saved guest images, which is not acceptable.
[Nitin>] I am not clear on this part, how saved guest images get broken? I think this change is like upgrading BIOS. It should not break guest images.
If our hiding of host information is broken, we’d like a patch to fix it; likewise any other CPUID inconsistency. What specific issues are you seeing?
[Nitin>] This is an issue with OS which have licensing restriction on CPUs. A customer reported to us that they were not seeing all cpus on windows server because Xen is exposing each vcpu as a socket on a multi-core host system.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Home