qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] VCPU hotplug support


From: Igor Mammedov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] VCPU hotplug support
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:24:24 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0

On 01/23/2012 06:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-01-23 17:29, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On 01/17/2012 03:17 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:

It seams that "env->cpuid_apic_id = cpu" is pointless especcialy
taking in account that in cpu_x86_init cpuid_apic_id is initialized
by cpu_index.
What we gain in having cpuid_apic_id that actually duplicate cpu_index?
May be there is sence to get rid of cpuid_apic_id?

cpu_index is for internal counting (I think to remember that,
cpuid_apic_id is the ID exposed to the guest. During CPU hotplug, you
can control this by virtually plugging the CPU in a specific slot. So we
need to pass this ID down the init chain - just not set it in generic code.

It could be set in target specific new_cpu, it is not necessary to change
whole cpu_init call chain and affect all other targets that might be not
interested in this change at all.



Another question is about how hot-plug/unplug should be designed:
1st approach:
     With the current code we can't create vcpu with specific index.

Forget about index, the apic_id is important to control. And that could
become something like -cpu XXX,apid_id=N. Of course, collisions need to
be detected and rejected.

     But we can implement xen like approach, where hot-plug command says
     which amount of active vcpus guest should have. This way we can
     leave current cpu_init ->  cpu_x86_init ->  cpu_exec_init call
     chain without change and plug/unplug next/last vcpu.

2nd approach:
     Ability to plug/unplug individual vcpus based on their cpu_index.
     to do this we need add cpu_index argument to cpu_init ->
     cpu_x86_init ->  cpu_exec_init call chain. It will look more
     like the real hardware cpu hot-plug, but do virtual guests really
     need it. And what for if this way is more preferrable than the 1st.


Jan,

Am I right in assuming that you are in a favor of 2nd approach with correction
that some opaque cpu ID (in case of x86 it will be apic_id) will be passed down
to new_cpu?

--
Thanks,
 Igor



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]