[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130305135649.GA2589@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:56:49 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/8] netback: don't bind kthread to cpu
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:30:10PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 20:51 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 04:00:02PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > The initialization process makes an assumption that the online cpus are
> > > numbered from 0 to xen_netbk_group_nr-1, which is not always true.
> >
> > And xen_netbk_group_nr is num_online_cpus()?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > So under what conditions does this change? Is this when the CPU hotplug
> > is involved and the CPUs go offline? In which case should there be a
>
> Yes, the hotplug path.
>
> > CPU hotplug notifier to re-bind the workers are appropiate?
?
Can't that option be explored?
> >
> > >
> > > As we only need a pool of worker threads, simply don't bind them to specific
> > > cpus.
> >
> > OK. Is there another method of doing this? Are there patches to make the thread
> > try to be vCPU->guest affinite?
> >
>
> No, not at the moment.
>
>
> Wei.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists