On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 11:15 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 23/09/16 11:05, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > If cluster is not prefered, cpuclass maybe a choice, but I
> > > personally perfer
> > > "cluster" split for ARM.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Peng.
> > >
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hello Peng,
> > >
> > > On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > > >
Hi Dario,
On 22/09/16 17:31, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 12:24 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 22/09/16 09:43, Dario Faggioli wrote:
Local migration basically --from the vcpu perspective-- means
create a
new vcpu, stop the original vcpu, copy the state from original to
new,
destr
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 18:05 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> We still can introduce cpupool-cluster-split or as Juergen suggested,
> use "cpupool-slit feature=xx" to split the cluster or cpuclasses
> into different cpupools. This is just a feature that better to have,
> I think.
>
> The reason to include
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 11:15 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 23/09/16 11:05, Peng Fan wrote:
> > If cluster is not prefered, cpuclass maybe a choice, but I
> > personally perfer
> > "cluster" split for ARM.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Peng.
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE
>
> Ple
On 23/09/16 11:05, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:24:37AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Peng,
On 23/09/16 03:14, Peng Fan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jul
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:24:37AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello Peng,
>
>On 23/09/16 03:14, Peng Fan wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>>On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hel
Hello Peng,
On 23/09/16 03:14, Peng Fan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Peng,
On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:21:00PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
According to George's comments,
Then, I think we could use affinity to restrict little vcpus be scheduled
on little vcpus,
and restrict big vcpus on big vcpus. Seems no need to consider soft
affinity, use hard
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:54:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hi Stefano,
>
>On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>Hello Peng,
>>>
>>>On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>O
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:29:53PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello Peng,
>
>On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 22/09/2016 18:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Peng,
On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:05 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > Yes (or I should say, "whatever", as I know nothing about all
> > > this! :-P)
> >
> > One more thing I'd like to ask, do you pr
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello Peng,
>
> On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > A f
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 12:24 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 22/09/16 09:43, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > Local migration basically --from the vcpu perspective-- means
> > create a
> > new vcpu, stop the original vcpu, copy the state from original to
> > new,
> > destroy the original vcpu and start the
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:05 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > Yes (or I should say, "whatever", as I know nothing about all
> > this! :-P)
>
> One more thing I'd like to ask, do you prefer cpu classes to be ARM
> specific or ARM/X86
> comm
Hello Peng,
On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
A feature like `xl cpupool-biglittle-split' can still be interesting,
Hi Dario,
On 22/09/16 09:43, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 20:28 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote:
This does not seem to match with what has been said at some point
in
this thread... And if it's like that, how's that possible, if the
pcpus' ISA
Hello Peng,
On 22/09/16 10:45, Peng Fan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Peng,
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, Stefa
[Trimming the Cc-list quite a bit!]
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:09 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:51:04AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > I think we should name this however we name the different types of
> > cpus.
> > i.e., if we're going to call these "cpu classes", then we sho
On 22/09/16 11:51, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> "cpupool-cluster-split" maybe a better name?
>
> I think we should name this however we name the different types of cpus.
> i.e., if we're going to ca
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:51:04AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Stefano,
>> >
>> > On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, J
On 22/09/16 10:27, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 17:27 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > A feature like `xl cpupool-biglittle-split' can still be
> > interesting,
>
> "cpupool-cluster-split" maybe a better name?
>
Yeah, sure, whatever! :-D
> >
> > completely orth
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello Peng,
>
>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 2
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:50:23AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Stefano,
>> >
>> > On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, J
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:49 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stefano,
> >
> > On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (CC a couple of ARM folks)
> > > >
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 20:28 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > This does not seem to match with what has been said at some point
> > in
> > this thread... And if it's like that, how's that possible, if the
> > pcpus' ISAs are (even only slightly) different?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hi Stefano,
>
>On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>(CC a couple of ARM folks)
>>>
>>>On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote:
On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:28:32PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hi Dario,
>
>On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 14:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>(CC a couple of ARM folks)
>>>
>>Yay, thanks for this! :-)
>>
>>>I had few discussions and more thought about big.LITTL
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > And in my suggestion, we allow a richer set of labels, so that the user
> > > > could also be more specific -- e.g., asking for "A15" specifically, for
> > > > example, and failing to build if there are no A15 cores present, while
> > > > allowing us
Hi Dario,
On 21/09/2016 16:45, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 14:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
(CC a couple of ARM folks)
Yay, thanks for this! :-)
I had few discussions and more thought about big.LITTLE support in
Xen.
The main goal of big.LITTLE is power efficiency by moving
On 21/09/2016 20:11, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
(CC a couple of ARM folks)
On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote:
On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wr
Hi Stefano,
On 21/09/2016 19:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
(CC a couple of ARM folks)
On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote:
On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrot
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> (CC a couple of ARM folks)
>
> On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > Hi Stefano,
> > >
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 14:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> (CC a couple of ARM folks)
>
Yay, thanks for this! :-)
> I had few discussions and more thought about big.LITTLE support in
> Xen.
> The main goal of big.LITTLE is power efficiency by moving task
> around
> and been able to idle one clus
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 20:28 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 10:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 21/09/16 09:38, Peng Fan wrote:
> > User may change the hard affinity of a vcpu, so we also need to
> > block a little
> > vcpu be scheduled to a big physical cpu. Add some checking code in
> > xen,
> > when chaning the hard affnity, chec
(CC a couple of ARM folks)
On 21/09/16 11:22, George Dunlap wrote:
On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrot
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:09:11AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
>On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>>On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 20/09/2
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:22:14AM +0100, George Dunlap 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:
Hi Stefano,
On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On T
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello Peng,
>
>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 2
On 21/09/16 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>> On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20/09/2016 12:27, Geo
Hello Peng,
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 Tu
On 20/09/16 21:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan
wrote:
On Tu
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 18:03 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Dario,
> 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:
> > > >
> > > > And this would work even if
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:
>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>> On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20/09/20
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:17:04PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote:
>> > >
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Tu
Hi Stefano,
On 20/09/2016 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:54:06AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > 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:
> > > > > O
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 17:34 +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote:
> > I think we definitely need to have Xen have some kind of idea the
> > order between processors, so that the user doesn't need to figure
> > out
> > which class / pool is big and which pool is LITT
Hi,
On 20/09/2016 12:27, George Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
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:
I'd like to add a computing
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Dario,
> 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:
>>> > And this would work even if/when there is only one cpu
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>> Actually, with the cpupool solution, if you want a guest (or dom0) to
>> actually have both big and LITTLE vcpus, you necessarily have to
>> implement per-vcpu (rather than per-domain, as it is now) cpupool
>> membership. I said myself
Hi Dario,
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:
>> > And this would work even if/when there is only one cpupool, or in
>> > general for domains that are in a pool th
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:11:04AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 21:33 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:33:58AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> >??
>> > No, I think it would be a lot simpler to just teach the scheduler
>> > about
>> > different classes of cp
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:01 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > And this would work even if/when there is only one cpupool, or in
> > general for domains that are in a pool that has both big and LITTLE
> > pcpus. Furthermore, big.LITTLE support and cpup
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 21:33 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:33:58AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > No, I think it would be a lot simpler to just teach the scheduler
> > about
> > different classes of cpus. credit1 would probably need to be
> > modified
> > so that its cre
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 14:03 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > Setting thing up like this, even automatically, either in
> > hypervisor or
> > > toolstack, is basically already possible (with all the goo
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 14:03 -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > Setting thing up like this, even automatically, either in
> hypervisor or
> > toolstack, is basically already possible (with all the good and bad
> > aspects of pinning, of course).
> >
>
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 12:23 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > > But expanding the schedulers to know about different classes of
> > > > cpus,
> > > > and having vc
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:59:05AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 19/09/2016 11:38, Peng Fan wrote:
> >>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>>Hello,
> >>>
> >>>On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 20
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi George,
> >
> > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall
> >> wrote:
> > As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not
> > enough
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 12:23 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > But expanding the schedulers to know about different classes of
> > > cpus,
> > > and having vcpus specified as running only on specific types of
> >
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 11:33 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 19/09/16 11:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > So, if I understand correctly, you would not recommend to extend
> > the
> > number of CPU pool per domain, correct?
>
> Well imagine trying to set the scheduling parameters, such as weight,
> whic
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:33:58AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>On 19/09/16 11:06, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi George,
>>
>> On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall
>>> wrote:
>> As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not
>
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:59:05AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
>On 19/09/2016 11:38, Peng Fan wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello
Hello Julien,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>Hello Peng,
>>>
>>>On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Peng Fan
This patch
On 19/09/16 11:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall
>> wrote:
> As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not
> enough to
> make
> big.LITTLE working on then. Xen is alw
On 19/09/16 12:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall
>> wrote:
> As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not
> enough to
> make
> big.LITTLE working on then. Xen is alw
Hi George,
On 19/09/2016 11:45, George Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not enough to
make
big.LITTLE working on then. Xen is always using the boot CPU to detect
the
list of features. With big.LITTLE f
On 19/09/2016 11:38, Peng Fan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello,
On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Peng,
On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Peng Fan
This
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> As mentioned in the mail you pointed above, this series is not enough to
>>> make
>>> big.LITTLE working on then. Xen is always using the boot CPU to detect
>>> the
>>> list of features. With big.LITTLE features may not be the same.
>>>
>>>
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:53:56AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>Hello Peng,
>>>
>>>On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Peng Fan
This patchset is to supp
Hello,
On 19/09/2016 10:36, Peng Fan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello Peng,
On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Peng Fan
This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC.
The idea of the patch is from
"https://lists.xenproje
Hello Julien,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
>Hello Peng,
>
>On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote:
>>From: Peng Fan
>>
>>This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC.
>>The idea of the patch is from
>>"https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/
Hello Peng,
On 19/09/2016 04:08, van.free...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Peng Fan
This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC.
The idea of the patch is from
"https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-05/msg00465.html";
There are some changes to cpupool and add x86 stub fu
From: Peng Fan
This patchset is to support XEN run on big.little SoC.
The idea of the patch is from
"https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-05/msg00465.html";
There are some changes to cpupool and add x86 stub functions to avoid build
break. Sending The RFC patchset out is to
80 matches
Mail list logo
