[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN][vNUMA][PATCH 3/9] public interface
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> +#ifndef __XEN_PUBLIC_DOM_NUMA_X86_H__ >> +#define __XEN_PUBLIC_DOM_NUMA_X86_H__ >> + >> +/* struct xc_cpumask : static structure */ >> +#define XEN_CPUMASK_BITS_PER_BYTE 8 >> +#define XEN_CPUMASK_BITS_TO_BYTES(bits) \ >> + (((bits)+XEN_CPUMASK_BITS_PER_BYTE-1)/XEN_CPUMASK_BITS_PER_BYTE) >> >> +#define XEN_MAX_VCPUS 128 >> +#define XEN_CPUMASK_DECLARE_BITMAP(name,bits) \ >> + uint8_t name[XEN_CPUMASK_BITS_TO_BYTES(bits)] >> +struct xen_cpumask{ XEN_CPUMASK_DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, XEN_MAX_VCPUS); }; >> +#define XEN_CPUMASK_BITMAP(maskp) ((maskp)->bits) > > What are xc_cpumask (a libxc concept) related definitions doing in a > hypervisor public header? These aren't even used in this header file. Below > I suggest a vcpu_to_vnode[] array, which probably gets rid of the need for > this bitmask stuff anyway. Stale comment with xc_cpumask .. sorry ! I did think of the vcpu_to_vnode array, but then we use the bitmask in hvm_info anyway (with vcpu_online). I thought I could atleast fold them into a single structure. I could change that if you insist. > >> +#define XEN_MAX_VNODES 4 > > A small number to be statically defined. Better to make your structure > extensible I think, perhaps including pointers out to vnode-indexed arrays? This structure is passed in hvm_info page. Should I use offset/len for these dynamic-sized, vnode-indexed arrays ? > >> +/* vnodes are 1GB-aligned */ >> +#define XEN_MIN_VNODE_SHIFT (30) >> + >> +struct xen_vnode_info { >> + uint8_t vnode_id; >> + uint8_t mnode_id; > > How do vnodes and mnodes differ? Why should a guest care about or need to > know about both, whatever they are? vnode_id is the node-id in the guest and mnode_id refers to the real node it maps to. Actually I don't need vnode_id. Will take that out. > >> + uint32_t nr_pages; > > Not an address range? Is that implicitly worked out somehow? Should be > commented, but even better just a <start,end> range explicitly given? The node address ranges are assumed contiguous and increasing. I will change that to <start,end> ranges. > >> + struct xen_cpumask vcpu_mask; /* vnode_to_vcpumask */ >> +}; > > Why not have a single integer array vcpu_to_vnode[] in the main > xen_domain_numa_info structure? No specific reason, except that all the vnode-related info is folded into a single structure. I will change that if you insist. > >> +#define XEN_DOM_NUMA_INTERFACE_VERSION 0x01 >> + >> +#define XEN_DOM_NUMA_CONFINE 0x01 >> +#define XEN_DOM_NUMA_SPLIT 0x02 >> +#define XEN_DOM_NUMA_STRIPE 0x03 >> +#define XEN_DOM_NUMA_DONTCARE 0x04 > > What should the guest do with these? You're rather light on comments in this > critical interface-defining header file. I will add comments. The intent is to share this information with the hypervisor and PV guests (for ballooning). > >> +struct xen_domain_numa_info { >> + uint8_t version; >> + uint8_t type; >> + >> + uint8_t nr_vcpus; >> + uint8_t nr_vnodes; >> + >> + /* XXX: hvm_info_table uses 32-bit for high_mem_pgend, >> + * so we should be fine 32-bits too*/ >> + uint32_t nr_pages; > > If this is going to be visible outside HVMloader (e.g., in PV guests) then > just make it a uint64_aligned_t and be done with it. Will do that. > >> + /* Only (nr_vnodes) entries are filled */ >> + struct xen_vnode_info vnode_info[XEN_MAX_VNODES]; >> + /* Only (nr_vnodes*nr_vnodes) entries are filled */ >> + uint8_t vnode_distance[XEN_MAX_VNODES*XEN_MAX_VNODES]; > > As suggested above, make these pointers out to dynamic-sized arrays. No need > for XEN_MAX_VNODES at all. In general, I realise I should add more comments. > > -- Keir > >> +}; >> + >> +#endif > > On 05/07/2010 09:52, "Dulloor" <dulloor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> oops .. sorry, here it is. >> >> -dulloor >> >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> This patch is incomplete. >>> >>> >>> On 03/07/2010 00:54, "Dulloor" <dulloor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Implement the structure that will be shared with hvmloader (with HVMs) >>>> and directly with the VMs (with PV). >>>> >>>> -dulloor >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by : Dulloor <dulloor@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |