Re: PV-vNUMA issue: topology is misinterpreted by the guest

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1374 bytes --]

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 18:10 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 07/24/2015 05:58 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:

> > So, just to check if I'm understanding is correct: you'd like to add an
> > abstraction layer, in Linux, like in generic (or, perhaps, scheduling)
> > code, to hide the direct interaction with CPUID.
> > Such layer, on baremetal, would just read CPUID while, on PV-ops, it'd
> > check with Xen/match vNUMA/whatever... Is this that you are saying?
> 
> Sort of, yes.
> 
> I just wouldn't add it, as it is already existing (more or less). It
> can deal right now with AMD and Intel, we would "just" have to add Xen.
> 
So, having gone through the rest of the thread (so far), and having
given a fair amount o thinking to this, I really think that something
like this would be a good thing to have in Linux.

Of course, it's not that my opinion on where should be in Linux counts
that much! :-D   Nevertheless, I wanted to make it clear that, while
skeptic at the beginning, I now think this is (part of) the way to go,
as I said and explained in my reply to George.

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

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