>>> On 23.06.17 at 10:33, wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:58:52AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.06.17 at 06:22, wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:09:13AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 24.05.17 at 08:56, wrote:
> +{
> +pi_cpu = cpumask_cycle(pi_cpu, &cpu
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 01:58:52AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.06.17 at 06:22, wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:09:13AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 24.05.17 at 08:56, wrote:
+{
+pi_cpu = cpumask_cycle(pi_cpu, &cpu_online_map);
>>>
>>>With this, how could
>>> On 23.06.17 at 06:22, wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:09:13AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.05.17 at 08:56, wrote:
>>> +{
>>> +pi_cpu = cpumask_cycle(pi_cpu, &cpu_online_map);
>>
>>With this, how could the CPU be offline by the time you make it
>>back to the check abov
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 09:09:13AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.05.17 at 08:56, wrote:
>> Currently, a blocked vCPU is put in its pCPU's pi blocking list. If
>> too many vCPUs are blocked on a given pCPU, it will incur that the list
>> grows too long. After a simple analysis, there are 32k
>>> On 24.05.17 at 08:56, wrote:
> Currently, a blocked vCPU is put in its pCPU's pi blocking list. If
> too many vCPUs are blocked on a given pCPU, it will incur that the list
> grows too long. After a simple analysis, there are 32k domains and
> 128 vcpu per domain, thus about 4M vCPUs may be bl
Currently, a blocked vCPU is put in its pCPU's pi blocking list. If
too many vCPUs are blocked on a given pCPU, it will incur that the list
grows too long. After a simple analysis, there are 32k domains and
128 vcpu per domain, thus about 4M vCPUs may be blocked in one pCPU's
PI blocking list. When
