[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 |