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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > 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. > > >

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hello Peng, > > > > > > On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > >

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

Hi Dario, On 22/09/16 17:31, Dario Faggioli wrote: On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 12:24 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: On 22/09/16 09:43, Dario Faggioli wrote: Local migration basically --from the vcpu perspective-- means create a new vcpu, stop the original vcpu, copy the state from original to new,

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

On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 18:05 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > We still can introduce cpupool-cluster-split or as Juergen suggested, > use "cpupool-slit feature=xx"  to split the cluster or cpuclasses > into different cpupools. This is just a feature that better to have, > I think. > > The reason to

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

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 >  >

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

On 23/09/16 11:05, Peng Fan wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:24:37AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: Hello Peng, On 23/09/16 03:14, Peng Fan wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016,

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

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:24:37AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello Peng, > >On 23/09/16 03:14, Peng Fan wrote: >>On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >>>Hi Stefano, >>> >>>On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:

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

Hello Peng, On 23/09/16 03:14, Peng Fan wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: Hello Peng, On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at

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

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:21:00PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: According to George's comments, Then, I think we could use affinity to restrict little vcpus be scheduled on little vcpus, and restrict big vcpus on big vcpus. Seems no need to consider soft affinity, use hard

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

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hi Stefano, > >On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >>>Hello Peng, >>> >>>On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:

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

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:29:53PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello Peng, > >On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: >>On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>>On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:

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

Hi Stefano, On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: Hello Peng, On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:05 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > Yes (or I should say, "whatever", as I know nothing about all > > > this! :-P) > > > > One more thing I'd like to ask, do you

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > Hello Peng, > > On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > > A

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

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 12:24 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > On 22/09/16 09:43, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > Local migration basically --from the vcpu perspective-- means > > create a > > new vcpu, stop the original vcpu, copy the state from original to > > new, > > destroy the original vcpu and start

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

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:05 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > Yes (or I should say, "whatever", as I know nothing about all > > this! :-P) > > One more thing I'd like to ask, do you prefer cpu classes to be ARM > specific or ARM/X86 >

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

Hello Peng, On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: A feature like `xl cpupool-biglittle-split' can still be

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

Hi Dario, On 22/09/16 09:43, Dario Faggioli wrote: On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 20:28 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote: This does not seem to match with what has been said at some point in this thread... And if it's like that, how's that possible, if the pcpus'

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

Hello Peng, On 22/09/16 10:45, Peng Fan wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: Hello Peng, On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/2016 20:09,

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

[Trimming the Cc-list quite a bit!] On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:09 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:51:04AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > I think we should name this however we name the different types of > > cpus. > > i.e., if we're going to call these "cpu classes", then we

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

On 22/09/16 11:51, George Dunlap wrote: > On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >> "cpupool-cluster-split" maybe a better name? > > I think we should name this however we name the different types of cpus. > i.e., if we're going to

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

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:51:04AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >

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

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >> > >> > Hi Stefano, >> > >> > On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> > > >> > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016,

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

On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini

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

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 17:27 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > A feature like `xl cpupool-biglittle-split' can still be > > interesting, > > "cpupool-cluster-split" maybe a better name? > Yeah, sure, whatever! :-D > > > > completely

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

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello Peng, > >On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote: >>On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >On Tue, 20 Sep

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

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >> > >> > Hi Stefano, >> > >> > On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> > > >> > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016,

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

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > > > > (CC a couple of ARM folks) > > > >

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

On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 20:28 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > This does not seem to match with what has been said at some point > > in > > this thread... And if it's like that, how's that possible, if the > > pcpus' ISAs are (even only slightly) different?

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

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hi Stefano, > >On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >>>(CC a couple of ARM folks) >>> >>>On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote: On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote: >

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

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:28:32PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hi Dario, > >On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 14:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >>>(CC a couple of ARM folks) >>> >>Yay, thanks for this! :-) >> >>>I had few discussions and more thought about

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > And in my suggestion, we allow a richer set of labels, so that the user > > > > could also be more specific -- e.g., asking for "A15" specifically, for > > > > example, and failing to build if there are no A15 cores present, while > > > > allowing

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

Hi Dario, On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote: On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 14:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: (CC a couple of ARM folks) Yay, thanks for this! :-) I had few discussions and more thought about big.LITTLE support in Xen. The main goal of big.LITTLE is power efficiency by

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

On 21/09/2016 20:11, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: (CC a couple of ARM folks) On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote: On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini

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

Hi Stefano, On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: (CC a couple of ARM folks) On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote: On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > (CC a couple of ARM folks) > > On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote: > > On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > Hi Stefano, > >

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

On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 14:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > (CC a couple of ARM folks) > Yay, thanks for this! :-) > I had few discussions and  more thought about big.LITTLE support in > Xen.  > The main goal of big.LITTLE is power efficiency by moving task > around  > and been able to idle one

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

On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 20:28 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > Use this in xl cfg file? > vcpuclass=["0-1:A35","2-5:A53", "6-7:A72"] ? > > I am not sure. If there are more kinds of CPUs, how to handle guest > vcpus, > as we discussed in this thread, we tend to support different classes > of vcpu > for

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

On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 10:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote: > > User may change the hard affinity of a vcpu, so we also need to > > block a little > > vcpu be scheduled to a big physical cpu. Add some checking code in > > xen, > > when chaning the hard affnity,

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

(CC a couple of ARM folks) On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote: On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall

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

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:09:11AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > >On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >>>Hi Stefano, >>> >>>On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >Hi, > >On

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

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:22:14AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On

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

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello Peng, > >On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote: >>On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >On Tue, 20 Sep

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

On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >>> Hi Stefano, >>> >>> On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 20/09/2016 12:27,

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

Hello Peng, On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: On

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

On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: Hi, On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan

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

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 18:03 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > Hi Dario, > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:54:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > > > > > > And this would work even

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

On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >>> Hi Stefano, >>> >>> On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On

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

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Stefano, >> >> On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: >> >

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan > > >

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

Hi Stefano, On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: Hi, On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:54:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: On

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:54:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0700, Stefano

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

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 17:34 +0200, Julien Grall wrote: > On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: > > I think we definitely need to have Xen have some kind of idea the > > order between processors, so that the user doesn't need to figure > > out > > which class / pool is big and which pool is

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

Hi, On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:54:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: I'd

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

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote: > Hi Dario, > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:54:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>> > And this would work even

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

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> Actually, with the cpupool solution, if you want a guest (or dom0) to >> actually have both big and LITTLE vcpus, you necessarily have to >> implement per-vcpu (rather than per-domain, as it is now) cpupool >>

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

Hi Dario, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:54:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: >> > And this would work even if/when there is only one cpupool, or in >> > general for domains that are in a pool

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

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:11:04AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: >On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 21:33 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:33:58AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> >?? >> > No, I think it would be a lot simpler to just teach the scheduler >> > about >> > different classes of

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

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > And this would work even if/when there is only one cpupool, or in > > general for domains that are in a pool that has both big and LITTLE > > pcpus. Furthermore, big.LITTLE support and

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

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 21:33 +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:33:58AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >  > > No, I think it would be a lot simpler to just teach the scheduler > > about > > different classes of cpus.  credit1 would probably need to be > > modified > > so that its

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 14:03 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > Setting thing up like this, even automatically, either in > > hypervisor or > > > toolstack, is basically already possible (with all the

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

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 14:03 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > Setting thing up like this, even automatically, either in > hypervisor or > > toolstack, is basically already possible (with all the good and bad > > aspects of pinning, of course). > >  >

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

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 12:23 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > > On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote: > > > > But expanding the schedulers to know about different classes of > > > > cpus, > > > > and having

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

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Peng Fan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:59:05AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > >On 19/09/2016 11:38, Peng Fan wrote: > >>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: > >>>Hello, > >>> > >>>On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19,

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

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote: > > Hi George, > > > > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall > >> wrote: > > As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series

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

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 12:23 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote: > > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote: > > > But expanding the schedulers to know about different classes of > > > cpus, > > > and having vcpus specified as running only on specific types of > >

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

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 11:33 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 19/09/16 11:06, Julien Grall wrote: > > So, if I understand correctly, you would not recommend to extend > > the > > number of CPU pool per domain, correct? > > Well imagine trying to set the scheduling parameters, such as weight, >

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

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:33:58AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >On 19/09/16 11:06, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi George, >> >> On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall >>> wrote: >> As mentioned in the mail you pointed

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

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:59:05AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: > > >On 19/09/2016 11:38, Peng Fan wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >>>Hello, >>> >>>On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello

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

Hello Julien, On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello, > >On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >>>Hello Peng, >>> >>>On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote: From: Peng Fan

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

On 19/09/16 11:06, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi George, > > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall >> wrote: > As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not > enough to > make > big.LITTLE

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

On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi George, > > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall >> wrote: > As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not > enough to > make > big.LITTLE

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

Hi George, On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall wrote: As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not enough to make big.LITTLE working on then. Xen is always using the boot CPU to detect the list of

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

On 19/09/2016 11:38, Peng Fan wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: Hello, On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: Hello Peng, On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote: From: Peng Fan

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

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall wrote: >>> As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not enough to >>> make >>> big.LITTLE working on then. Xen is always using the boot CPU to detect >>> the >>> list of features. With big.LITTLE features may

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

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello, > >On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >>>Hello Peng, >>> >>>On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote: From: Peng Fan This

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

Hello, On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: Hello Peng, On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote: From: Peng Fan This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC. The idea of the patch is from

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

Hello Julien, On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote: >Hello Peng, > >On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote: >>From: Peng Fan >> >>This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC. >>The idea of the patch is from

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

Hello Peng, On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote: From: Peng Fan This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC. The idea of the patch is from "https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-05/msg00465.html; There are some changes to cpupool

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

From: Peng Fan This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC. The idea of the patch is from "https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-05/msg00465.html; There are some changes to cpupool and add x86 stub functions to avoid build break. Sending The RFC