[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH V12 05/17] xen: Add xenfv machine
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Jan Kiszka wrote: > [ Late comments, I know, sorry. Just happen to came across this. ] > > On 2011-03-29 20:27, anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Introduce the Xen FV (Fully Virtualized) machine to Qemu, some more Xen > > specific call will be added in further patches. > > > > Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > hw/pc.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++-- > > hw/pc_piix.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > hw/xen.h | 4 ++++ > > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/pc.c b/hw/pc.c > > index 6939c04..d7732d4 100644 > > --- a/hw/pc.c > > +++ b/hw/pc.c > > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ > > #include "sysemu.h" > > #include "blockdev.h" > > #include "ui/qemu-spice.h" > > +#include "xen.h" > > > > /* output Bochs bios info messages */ > > //#define DEBUG_BIOS > > @@ -918,7 +919,11 @@ static void pc_cpu_reset(void *opaque) > > CPUState *env = opaque; > > > > cpu_reset(env); > > - env->halted = !cpu_is_bsp(env); > > + if (!xen_enabled()) { > > + env->halted = !cpu_is_bsp(env); > > + } else { > > + env->halted = 1; > > + } > > Not a fault of your patch, but pc_cpu_reset should not exist in the > first place. Setting env->halted should be done in i386's cpu_reset. > > I think Xen would be better off with installing a custom VCPU reset > handler and overwrite halted according to its own needs. KVM is doing > the same. Then we could clean up pc_cpu_reset without bothering Xen. I will do that. > > } > > > > static CPUState *pc_new_cpu(const char *cpu_model) > > @@ -952,7 +957,12 @@ void pc_cpus_init(const char *cpu_model) > > #endif > > } > > > > - for(i = 0; i < smp_cpus; i++) { > > + if (!xen_enabled()) { > > + for(i = 0; i < smp_cpus; i++) { > > + pc_new_cpu(cpu_model); > > + } > > + } else { > > + /* Xen require only one Qemu VCPU */ > > pc_new_cpu(cpu_model); > > This looks a bit fishy. What is the semantic of -smp 2 or more in Xen > mode? If that is an invalid/unused configuration option, catch that and > reject it instead of installing this workaround. If it has a valid > semantic, please elaborate why you need to restrict the number of > instantiated cpus. Just to optimize memory usage? I thought in a first place that was needed to avoid errors. But it works also when we initialise other CPUs. But I prefere to keep it that way to save memory and in the case where there is a thread for each cpu that will also avoid to have many useless threads. Also, I use -smp i to initialise the xen's structures related to the vcpu. > > } > > } > > @@ -980,6 +990,11 @@ void pc_memory_init(ram_addr_t ram_size, > > *above_4g_mem_size_p = above_4g_mem_size; > > *below_4g_mem_size_p = below_4g_mem_size; > > > > + if (xen_enabled()) { > > + /* Nothing to do for Xen */ > > + return; > > + } > > + > > This looks fragile /wrt potential future changes of pc_memory_init. > Can't those bits Xen is interested in, ie. the above/below_4g_mem_size > calculation, be moved into a separate function or even to the caller > (should be trivial enough, the interface of pc_memory_init is clumsy in > this regard anyway) so that you can simply skip pc_memory_init when in > Xen mode? I'll do that, put the calculation in the caller, and change the pc_memory_init prototypes. Thanks for your review, Regards, -- Anthony PERARD _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |