From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BC5C43331 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDCBF206F6 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="MoPcvQi4" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BDCBF206F6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jGjhH-0003s4-70; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:34:23 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jGjhF-0003rz-E5 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:34:21 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 29ffadaa-6dd4-11ea-83fc-12813bfff9fa Received: from esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.168]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 29ffadaa-6dd4-11ea-83fc-12813bfff9fa; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:34:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1585056859; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QQt6Op0m/oPcNptUxnjP06pk6N31FQ2vdZvTg7xbqG8=; b=MoPcvQi4Jem/LiLevr2o4TRwkkWl2EYTIVslWrihT1P+PCLeaDQA0hPV J8BrErxfmrvrfbjEIu4k0j09HTQ3LcdqG8b5X5cJpXv5VZYkLYD6YJGYC xTNznUp+3p6eooHmH0EAiwIKvDhCuLVUsevC6nuwhTmWhEyyvrK2MJ7yk 0=; Authentication-Results: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=sergey.dyasli@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=sergey.dyasli@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com Received-SPF: None (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of sergey.dyasli@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="sergey.dyasli@citrix.com"; x-sender="sergey.dyasli@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of sergey.dyasli@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="sergey.dyasli@citrix.com"; x-sender="sergey.dyasli@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="sergey.dyasli@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: /0iq+qBKxK0Vyc6GayxAKZhuG3JWQkeqtcWSxPLW4xi7wJHEuYTNNR65dFApnsChNgWj7AckWP YygaiTE3DyL5GWxm+5/Awg+eVs5tzAlbkzX1wPsE3IJ4G+tfQ4peEoHPakOFU7ZSfsMc+oWHiB jAGzOmMG8iLyvoY34gscBClRM0FUOUCvyNygXlO8pCyXAuf2fOrffkf9boaiN6X69//LwVGN8l 10ohycyb29iricXJk7WCFFITNKD2OIzJhnFHXUXhQ9kS5jD2gGtTQXJXPQr8jcixFoMpD5lvtc 5ts= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 14871615 X-Ironport-Server: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,300,1580792400"; d="scan'208";a="14871615" From: Sergey Dyasli To: Juergen Gross Thread-Topic: xl vcpu-pin peculiarities in core scheduling mode Thread-Index: AQHWAeCK3r7vam37nES8NI2pgDlwlA== Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:34:15 +0000 Message-ID: <1585056853121.58010@citrix.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-imapappendstamp: AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net (15.00.1473.004) x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <983438DE8824114F8DCE3B8C34BA60A3@citrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Xen-devel] xl vcpu-pin peculiarities in core scheduling mode X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sergey Dyasli , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Dario Faggioli , Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Ian Jackson , Roger Pau Monne Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" Hi Juergen,=0A= =0A= I've notived there is no documentation about how vcpu-pin is supposed to wo= rk=0A= with core scheduling enabled. I did some experiments and noticed the follow= ing=0A= inconsistencies:=0A= =0A= 1. xl vcpu-pin 5 0 0=0A= Windows 10 (64-bit) (1) 5 0 0 -b- 1644.0 0 /= all=0A= Windows 10 (64-bit) (1) 5 1 1 -b- 1650.1 0 /= all=0A= ^ ^= =0A= CPU 1 doesn't match reported hard-affinity of 0. Should this command s= et=0A= hard-affinity of vCPU 1 to 1? Or should it be 0-1 for both vCPUs inste= ad?=0A= =0A= =0A= 2. xl vcpu-pin 5 0 1=0A= libxl: error: libxl_sched.c:62:libxl__set_vcpuaffinity: Domain 5:Setti= ng vcpu affinity: Invalid argument=0A= This is expected but perhaps needs documenting somewhere?=0A= =0A= =0A= 3. xl vcpu-pin 5 0 1-2=0A= Windows 10 (64-bit) (1) 5 0 2 -b- 1646.7 1-2= / all=0A= Windows 10 (64-bit) (1) 5 1 3 -b- 1651.6 1-2= / all=0A= ^ ^^^= =0A= Here is a CPU / affinity mismatch again, but the more interesting fact= =0A= is that setting 1-2 is allowed at all, I'd expect CPU would never be s= et=0A= to 1 with such settings.=0A= =0A= Please let me know what you think about the above cases.=0A= =0A= --=0A= Thanks,=0A= Sergey=0A=