Hi Gu Zheng,
Will prefer to wait for the moment . There is no point doing duplicate
things in parallel.
Thanks
Anshul Makkar
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:41:07 +0200
> Anshul Makkar <anshul.mak...@profitbricks.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently as per the specs for cpu_hot(un)plug, ACPI GPE Block: IO
>> ports 0xafe0-0xafe3 where each bit corresponds to each CPU.
>>
>> Currently, EJ0 method in acpi-dsdt-cpu-hotplu.dsl doesn't do anything.
>>
>> Method(CPEJ, 2, NotSerialized) {
>> // _EJ0 method - eject callback
>> Sleep(200)
>> }
>>
>> I want to implement a notification mechanism for CPU hotunplug just
>> like we have in memory hotunplug where in we write to particular IO
>> port and this read/write is caught in the memory-hotplug.c.
>>
>> So, just want a suggestion as to whether I should expand the IO port
>> range from 0xafe0 to 0xafe4 (addition of 1 byte), where last byte is
>> for notification of EJ0 event.
> I have it in my TODO list to rewrite CPU hotplug IO interface to be
> similar with memory hotplug one. So you can try to it, it will
> allow to drop CPUs bitmask and make interface scalable to more then
> 256 cpus.
>
>>
>> Or if you have any other suggestion, please share.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Anshul Makkar
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Anshul Makkar
>> <anshul.mak...@profitbricks.com> wrote:
>> > Oh yes, sorry for the ambiguity. I meant proposal to "park" unplugged
>> > vcpus.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the suggesting the practical approach.
>> >
>> > Anshul Makkar
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Gleb Natapov <g...@minantech.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:02:59PM +0200, Anshul Makkar wrote:
>> >>> IIRC, Igor was of the opinion that patch for vcpu deletion will be
>> >>> incomplete till its handled properly in kvm i.e vcpus are destroyed
>> >>> completely.
>> >>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/114347
>> >>> .
>> >>>
>> >>> So can the above proposal where just vcpus can be disabled and
>> >>> reused in qemu is an acceptable solution ?
>> >>>
>> >> If by "above proposal" you mean the proposal in the email you linked,
>> >> then no since it tries to destroy vcpu, but does it incorrectly. If you
>> >> mean proposal to "park" unplugged vcpu, so that guest will not be able
>> >> to use it, then yes, it is pragmatic path forward.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> Anshul Makkar
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Gleb Natapov <g...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >>> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 01:40:08PM +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
>> >>> >> >> There was a patch(from Chen Fan, last august) about releasing vcpu
>> >>> >> >> when
>> >>> >> >> closing vcpu fd <http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg95701.html>,
>> >>> >> >> but
>> >>> >> >> your comment said "Attempt where made to make it possible to
>> >>> >> >> destroy
>> >>> >> >> individual vcpus separately from destroying VM before, but they
>> >>> >> >> were
>> >>> >> >> unsuccessful thus far."
>> >>> >> >> So what is the pain here? If we want to achieve the goal, what
>> >>> >> >> should we do?
>> >>> >> >> Looking forward to your further comments.:)
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> > CPU array is accessed locklessly in a lot of places, so it will
>> >>> >> > have to be RCUified.
>> >>> >> > There was attempt to do so 2 year or so ago, but it didn't go
>> >>> >> > anyware. Adding locks is
>> >>> >> > to big a price to pay for ability to free a little bit of memory by
>> >>> >> > destroying vcpu.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Yes, it's a pain here. But if we want to implement "vcpu hot-remove",
>> >>> >> this must be
>> >>> >> fixed sooner or later.
>> >>> > Why? "vcpu hot-remove" already works (or at least worked in the past
>> >>> > for some value of "work"). No need to destroy vcpu completely, just
>> >>> > park it and tell a guest not to use it via ACPI hot unplug event.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> And any guys working on kvm "vcpu hot-remove" now?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > An
>> >>> >> > alternative may be to make sure that stopped vcpu takes as little
>> >>> >> > memory as possible.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Yeah. But if we add a new vcpu with the old id that we stopped
>> >>> >> before, it will fail.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > No need to create vcpu again, just unpark it and notify a guest via
>> >>> > ACPI hot plug event that
>> >>> > vcpu can be used now.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Gleb.
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
>> >>> > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
>> >>> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Gleb.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
