|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xl: introduce specific VCPU to PCPU mapping in config file
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 00:20 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> xm supports the following syntax (in the config file) for
> specific VCPU to PCPU mapping:
>
> cpus = ["2", "3"] # VCPU0 runs on CPU2, VCPU1 runs on CPU3
>
> Allow for the same to be done in xl.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
> --- a/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
> +++ b/tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ static uint32_t domid;
> static const char *common_domname;
> static int fd_lock = -1;
>
> +/* Stash for specific vcpu to pcpu mappping */
> +static int *vcpu_to_pcpu;
>
> static const char savefileheader_magic[32]=
> "Xen saved domain, xl format\n \0 \r";
> @@ -630,6 +632,21 @@ static void parse_config_data(const char
> exit(1);
> }
>
> + /* Prepare the array for single vcpu to pcpu mappings */
> + vcpu_to_pcpu = xmalloc(sizeof(int) * b_info->max_vcpus);
> + memset(vcpu_to_pcpu, -1, sizeof(int) * b_info->max_vcpus);
> +
> + /*
> + * Idea here is to let libxl think all the domain's vcpus
> + * have cpu affinity with all the pcpus on the list.
> + * It is then us, here in xl, that matches each single vcpu
> + * to its pcpu (and that's why we need to stash such info in
> + * the vcpu_to_pcpu array now) after the domain has been created.
> + * Doing it like this saves the burden of passing to libxl
> + * some big array hosting the single mappings. Also, using
> + * the cpumap derived from the list ensures memory is being
> + * allocated on the proper nodes anyway.
So effectively we create the domain pinned to the right nodes and then
rebind all the CPUS later to be mapped to specific phys-processors? This
means that the memory which is allocated is from the correct nodes, even
though we appear to do the pinning later. Clever.
> + */
> libxl_cpumap_set_none(&b_info->cpumap);
> while ((buf = xlu_cfg_get_listitem(cpus, n_cpus)) != NULL) {
> i = atoi(buf);
> @@ -638,6 +655,8 @@ static void parse_config_data(const char
> exit(1);
> }
> libxl_cpumap_set(&b_info->cpumap, i);
> + if (n_cpus < b_info->max_vcpus)
> + vcpu_to_pcpu[n_cpus] = i;
> n_cpus++;
> }
> }
> @@ -1709,6 +1728,31 @@ start:
> if ( ret )
> goto error_out;
>
> + /* If single vcpu to pcpu mapping was requested, honour it */
> + if (vcpu_to_pcpu) {
This is always allocated above, isn't it? I'm concerned that this might
break the non-1-1 case.
> + libxl_cpumap vcpu_cpumap;
> +
> + libxl_cpumap_alloc(ctx, &vcpu_cpumap);
> + for (i = 0; i < d_config.b_info.max_vcpus; i++) {
> +
> + if (vcpu_to_pcpu[i] != -1) {
> + libxl_cpumap_set_none(&vcpu_cpumap);
> + libxl_cpumap_set(&vcpu_cpumap, vcpu_to_pcpu[i]);
> + } else {
> + libxl_cpumap_set_any(&vcpu_cpumap);
> + }
> + if (libxl_set_vcpuaffinity(ctx, domid, i, &vcpu_cpumap)) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "setting affinity failed on vcpu `%d'.\n",
> i);
> + libxl_cpumap_dispose(&vcpu_cpumap);
> + free(vcpu_to_pcpu);
> + ret = ERROR_FAIL;
> + goto error_out;
> + }
> + }
> + libxl_cpumap_dispose(&vcpu_cpumap);
> + free(vcpu_to_pcpu);
vpuc_to_pcpu = NULL, in case you go back around again...
For that reason it might be preferable to put vcpu_to_pcpu struct
dom_info and pass that to parse_config -- I think Goncalo is doing
something similar for the vncviewer option.
> + }
> +
> ret = libxl_userdata_store(ctx, domid, "xl",
> config_data, config_len);
> if (ret) {
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |