>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 13.08.08 10:26 >>>
>On 13/8/08 09:22, "Tim Deegan" <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> At 09:21 +0100 on 13 Aug (1218619274), Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Both seem to be hacks to get to 128 CPUs, without consideration of how
>>> to go beyond that
>> 
>> I think the shadow_page_info one is a general fix for my implicit
>> assumption that sizeof(cpumask_t) == sizeof (long).
>
>Do some fields after the cpumask need to line up in both structures? Placing
>a dummy cpumask in the shadow_page structure might make most sense.
>
>For the other one I'll have to think a bit. The need for GDT entries per CPU
>currently obviously means scaling much past a few hundred CPUs is going to
>be difficult.
But the cpumask-in-page_info is a scalability concern, too - systems with
many CPUs will tend to have a lot of memory, and the growing overhead
of the page_info array may become an issue then, too. Page clustering
may be an option to reduce/eliminate the growth, though I didn't spend
much thought on this or possible alternatives.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel