On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 10:11 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 15:20 -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote: > > From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > xend prior to 4.0 understands vcpus as maxvcpus and vcpu_avail > > as a bit map of which cpus are online (default is all). > > > > xend from 4.0 onwards understands maxvcpus as maxvcpus and > > vcpus as the number which are online (from 0..N-1). The > > upstream commit (68a94cf528e6 "xm: Add maxvcpus support") > > claims that if maxvcpus is omitted then the old behaviour > > (i.e. obeying vcpu_avail) is retained, but AFAICT it was not, > > in this case vcpu==maxcpus==online cpus. This is good for us > > because handling anything else would be fiddly. > > > > This patch changes parsing of the virDomainDef maxvcpus and vcpus > > entries to use the corresponding 'maxvcpus' and 'vcpus' settings > > from xm and xl config. It also drops use of the old Xen 3.x > > 'vcpu_avail' setting. > > > > The change also removes the maxvcpus limit of MAX_VIRT_VCPUS (since > > maxvcpus is simply a count, not a bit mask), which is particularly > > crucial on ARM where MAX_VIRT_CPUS == 1 (since all guests are > > expected to support vcpu placement, and therefore only the boot > > vcpu's info lives in the shared info page). > > > > Existing tests adjusted accordingly, and new tests added for the > > 'maxvcpus' setting. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <Ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Ian Campbell <Ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> > (as far as "domxml-from-native xen-xl" goes, I seem to have another issue > actually starting a domain on ARM, which I'll investigate...) Turned out to be a mismatch between my build-time and run-time libxl versions, fixed by a clean rebuild. So that's a full Tested-by. I noticed that the newer cmdline= (inplace of root=+extra= etc) wasn't supported. I'll knock something up. Ian. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list