[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160401091507.GG3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:15:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
david.vrabel@...rix.com, mingo@...hat.com,
Douglas_Warzecha@...l.com, pali.rohar@...il.com, jdelvare@...e.com,
linux@...ck-us.net, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
jeremy@...p.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org, akataria@...are.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] virt, sched: add cpu pinning to
smp_call_sync_on_phys_cpu()
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 11:03:21AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Maybe just make the vpin thing an option like:
> >
> > smp_call_on_cpu(int (*func)(void *), int phys_cpu);
> > Also; is something like the vpin thing possible on KVM? because if we're
> > going to expose it to generic code like this we had maybe look at wider
> > support.
>
> It is necessary for dom0 under Xen. I don't think there is a need to do
> this on KVM as a guest has no direct access to e.g. BIOS functions of
> the real hardware and the host system needs no vcpu pinning. I'm not
> sure about VMWare.
OK, then can we WARN if .phys=1 and the platform doesn't support it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists