(Orran/Jimi cc'ed, see question below...)
I understand and sympathize with the need for dom0 to
sometimes get and use information from each processor that is
only available if dom0 is running on each processor.
However, AFAIK, SMP guests are always gang-scheduled, correct?
No,
On 5 Apr 2006, at 15:07, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote:
I believe ppc has paravirtualized spinlocks in their Linux
kernel, though even this won't necessarily help with a poorly
written SMP application.
No data, admittedly, but perhaps our good buddies at
Watson could comment?
I believe ppc has paravirtualized spinlocks in their Linux
kernel, though even this won't necessarily help with a poorly
written SMP application.
We have an equivalent of this (bad pre-emption mitigation), along with
an alternative (bad pre-emption avoidance). Both have various pros and
On 4 Apr 2006, at 03:17, Tian, Kevin wrote:
Then consider your question about a large box with many processors.
How about the real environment? Is it the case to provide a 16-way SMP
box, or a 16-way NUMA box? I prefer to the latter. If it's a NUMA box,
dom0 sees physical ACPI table and can
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2006年4月4日 15:26
On 4 Apr 2006, at 03:17, Tian, Kevin wrote:
Then consider your question about a large box with many processors.
How about the real environment? Is it the case to provide a 16-way
SMP
box, or a 16-way NUMA box? I prefer to the
Gingold
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Does dom0 see all physical
processors? (RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] SAL INFO virtualization)
On 4 Apr 2006, at 03:17, Tian, Kevin wrote:
Then consider your question about a large box with many processors.
How about the real environment? Is it the case to provide
I understand and sympathize with the need for dom0 to
sometimes get and use information from each processor that is
only available if dom0 is running on each processor.
However, AFAIK, SMP guests are always gang-scheduled, correct?
No, there's no need to strictly gang schedule, and the
