Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 0/5] xen/arm: support big.little SoC

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

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' ISAs are (even only slightly) different?
> > Right, at some point I mentioned that the set of errata and features
> > will be different between processor.
> Yes, I read that, but wasn't (and still am not) sure about whether or
> not that meant a vcpu can move freely between classes or not, in the
> way that the scheduler does that.
>
> In fact, you say:
>
> > With a bit of work in Xen, it would be possible to do move the vCPU
> > between big and LITTLE cpus. As mentioned above, we could sanitize
> > the
> > features to only enable a common set.
> > You can view the big.LITTLE
> > problem as a local live migration between two kind of CPUs.
> 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 new one. My point is that this
> is not something that can be done within nor initiated by the
> scheduler, e.g., during a context switch or a vcpu wakeup!
By local migration, I meant from the perspective of the hypervisor. In 
the hypervisor you have to trap feature registers and other 
implementation defined registers to show the same value across all the 
physical CPUs.
You don't need to recreate the vCPU every time you move from one set of 
CPUs to another one. Sorry for the confusion.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel