> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:13 PM > > >>> On 04.02.16 at 14:47, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> From: Ian Jackson [mailto:ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com] > >> Sent: 04 February 2016 13:34 > >> * Is it possible for libxl to somehow tell from the rest of the > >> configuration that this larger limit should be applied ? > >> > >> AFAICT there is nothing in libxl directly involving vgpu. How can > >> libxl be used to create a guest with vgpu enabled ? I had thought > >> that this was done merely with the existing PCI passthrough > >> configuration, but it now seems that somehow a second device model > >> would have to be started. libxl doesn't have code to do that. > >> > > > > AIUI if the setting of the increased limit is tied to provisioning a gvt-g > > instance for a VM then I don't there needs to be extra information in the VM > > config. These seems like the most sensible thing to do. > > I don't understand this: For one, it's still unclear to me on what basis > it would be known that a given VM is a "gvt-g instance". And even if > that's indeed derivable from something, the uncertainty about a > workable upper bound on the number of WP ranges would still seem > to demand the value to be specifiable separately... >
We'll invent a different parameter e.g. gvt-g from existing passthrough one. So just for this question, a toolstack can know whether a VM is provisioned with a vgpu based on that parameter from config file. Thanks Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
