Re: [Xen-devel] [v7 PATCH 03/10] xen: derive NUMA node affinity from hard and soft CPU affinity

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/10/2014 04:20 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On mar, 2014-06-10 at 15:53 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 06/10/2014 01:44 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > if a domain's NUMA node-affinity (which is what controls
> > > memory allocations) is provided by the user/toolstack, it
> > > just is not touched. However, if the user does not say
> > > anything, leaving it all to Xen, let's compute it in the
> > > following way:
> > >
> > >    1. cpupool's cpus & hard-affinity & soft-affinity
> > >    2. if (1) is empty: cpupool's cpus & hard-affinity
> > >
> > > This guarantees memory to be allocated from the narrowest
> > > possible set of NUMA nodes, ad makes it relatively easy to
> > > set up NUMA-aware scheduling on top of soft affinity.
> > >
> > > Note that such 'narrowest set' is guaranteed to be non-empty.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Chenges from v6:
> > >    * fixed a bug when a domain was being created inside a
> > >      cpupool;
> > This definitely should have erased the Reviewed-by, as it implies I
> > reviewed the bug fix.
> Right! Sorry for that. I actually wanted to do it, but I just forgot to
> before pressing enter on `stg email'! :-(
>
> > Also, just curious, did you rename these variables since the last series?
> >
> > Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Thanks and sorry again. So, for v8, should I kill the Reviewed-by and
> replace it with the Acked-by?
Yes, I think so -- basically I haven't had time to do a thorough review 
of the cpupool stuff, but at a first glance it looks good.  I can do so 
if needed.
 -George

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