Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 0/5] xen/arm: support big.little SoC

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 11:15 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 23/09/16 11:05, Peng Fan wrote:
> > If cluster is not prefered, cpuclass maybe a choice, but I
> > personally perfer
> > "cluster" split for ARM.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Peng.
> > 
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE
> 
> Please try to have a think on all the use case and not only yours.
> 
This last line is absolutely true and very important!

That being said, I am a bit lost.

So, AFAICT, in order to act properly when the user asks for:

 vcpuclass = ["1,2:foo", "0,3:bar"]

we need to decide what "foo" and "bar" are at the xl and libxl level,
and whether they are the same all the way down to Xen (and if not,
what's the mapping).

We also said it would be nice to support:

 xl cpupool-split --feature=foobar

and hence we also need to decide what's foobar, whether it is in the
same namespace of foo and bar (i.e., it can be foobar==foo, or
foobar==bar, etc), or it is something else, or both.

Can someone list what are the various alternative approaches on the
table?

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel