On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Julien Grall 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:
>>>>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 Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan <van.free...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>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:
>>>>>It is harder to figure out which one is supposed to be
>>>>>big and which one LITTLE. Regardless, we could default to using the
>>>>>first cluster (usually big), which is also the cluster of the boot cpu,
>>>>>and utilize the second cluster only when the user demands it.
>>>>Why do you think the boot CPU will usually be a big one? In the case of Juno
>>>>platform it is configurable, and the boot CPU is a little core on r2 by
>>>>In any case, what we care about is differentiate between two set of CPUs. I
>>>>don't think Xen should care about migrating a guest vCPU between big and
>>>>LITTLE cpus. So I am not sure why we would want to know that.
>>>No, it is not about migrating (at least yet). It is about giving useful
>>>information to the user. It would be nice if the user had to choose
>>>between "big" and "LITTLE" rather than "class 0x1" and "class 0x100", or
>>>even "A7" or "A15".
>>As Dario mentioned in previous email,
>>for dom0 provide like this:
>>dom0_vcpus_big = 4
>>dom0_vcpus_little = 2
>>If these two no provided, we could let dom0 runs on big pcpus or big.little.
>>Anyway this is not the important point for dom0 only big or big.little.
>>For domU, provide "vcpus.big" and "vcpus.little" in xl configuration file.
>>vcpus.big = 2
>>vcpus.litle = 4
>>According to George's comments,
>>Then, I think we could use affinity to restrict little vcpus be scheduled on
>>and restrict big vcpus on big vcpus. Seems no need to consider soft affinity,
>>affinity is to handle this.
>>We may need to provide some interface to let xl can get the information such
>>big.little or smp. if it is big.little, which is big and which is little.
>>For how to differentiate cpus, I am looking the linaro eas cpu topology code,
>>The code has not been upstreamed (:, but merged into google android kernel.
>>I only plan to take some necessary code, such as device tree parse and
>>cpu topology build, because we only need to know the computing capacity of
>>Some doc about eas piece, including dts node examples:
>I am reluctant to take any non-upstreamed bindings in Xen. There is a similar
Yeah. I understand :)
>series going on the lklm .
I'll have a look at this series, seems simpler than the code in linaro tree.
Whether the EAS cpu topology code or the series you listed, this is to let us
differentiate the cpu classes. This is not the hard point, just what
information to get from dts.
We need to reach a point that how to arrange the different cpu classes, I think.
Think we get dmips/cap from dts for each cpu, put the info into cpu_data for
>But it sounds like it is a lot of works for little benefits (i.e giving a
>better name to the set of CPUs). The naming will also not fit if in the
>future hardware will have more than 2 kind of CPUs.
Oh. Yeah. There is possibility that an soc contains such as A35 + A53 + A72..
Then xx.big and xx.little seems not enough.
On such SoC, we still need to support big.little guest? We may not call it
big.little guest, if guest also needs A35 + A53 + A72 vcpu..
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 guest. But if there are many kinds of physical CPUs, we also need to let
guest have so many kinds of virtual cpus?
Anyway the first step for me is to differentiate the physical cpus and
add the info to cpu_data or else.
>>I am not sure, but we may also need to handle mpidr for ARM, because big and
>>little vcpus are supported.
>I am not sure to understand what you mean here.
For big.little guest, which vcpu is in cluster 0 , which is in cluster 1, also
to fill related value for MPIDR for guest.
Xen-devel mailing list