From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86: allow specifying the NUMA nodes Dom0 should run on Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:18:33 +0000 Message-ID: <1425464311.2614.1.camel@citrix.com> References: <54EF315902000078000640FF@mail.emea.novell.com> <54EF3348020000780006413C@mail.emea.novell.com> <1424970840.4742.228.camel@citrix.com> <54F03CE0020000780006472F@mail.emea.novell.com> <1425031468.10194.43.camel@citrix.com> <54F05A0C0200007800064878@mail.emea.novell.com> <1425048895.10194.108.camel@citrix.com> <54F5A047020000780006592F@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4326160547897120962==" Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YT6Nw-0004mj-Eh for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:18:36 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54F5A047020000780006592F@mail.emea.novell.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "JBeulich@suse.com" Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , Ian Campbell , Andrew Cooper , "Tim (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============4326160547897120962== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-WXEFyPMe+hwBoZ4OZNPt" --=-WXEFyPMe+hwBoZ4OZNPt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 10:51 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 27.02.15 at 15:54, wrote: > > The idea is that, whether the mask is full because no one touched this > > default, or because it has been manually set like that, there is nothin= g > > to do at the soft affinity balancing level. >=20 > In that case I think __vcpu_has_soft_affinity() simply isn't general > enough: Along with checking whether all bits are set in the > soft affinity, it should also check whether soft is a subset of hard > (or the passed in second mask). And really it should imo also cover > the case where not all bits are set in the mask, but all those > corresponding to online CPUs (both of which ought to have the > same effect) > I'm fine with this. > That would then leave introducing a "relaxed (or "strict", > depending on what we'd like to be the default) mode in the patch > here, controlling whether ->cpu_hard_affinity gets overridden > (and we'd always override ->cpu_soft_affinity). >=20 And with this too... I'll comment the code in the other email, the one with the patch. Regards, Dario --=-WXEFyPMe+hwBoZ4OZNPt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEABECAAYFAlT22/cACgkQk4XaBE3IOsQmrQCfRl+22ZN3Wz7Ioekiozp9nB7q 2CIAn16WHjU9LLKvGlLPSPShP4Gg5O0Q =UXAj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-WXEFyPMe+hwBoZ4OZNPt-- --===============4326160547897120962== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============4326160547897120962==--