From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LCjIY-0002vt-VS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:25:55 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LCjIY-0002vX-3C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:25:54 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37356 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LCjIX-0002vT-WF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:25:54 -0500 Received: from outbound-dub.frontbridge.com ([213.199.154.16]:50229 helo=IE1EHSOBE002.bigfish.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LCjIX-00089Z-Ox for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:25:53 -0500 Message-ID: <494838F1.6070005@amd.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:25:37 +0100 From: Andre Przywara MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4947B863.1040909@amd.com> <49481AEB.1020909@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <49481AEB.1020909@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 4/8] v2: extend parser to parse pin: option Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity Anthony Liguori wrote: > Andre Przywara wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara >> > > I think we suggested that this should be specified in a different option > than -numa to separate the host/guest configuration bits. As I said in the beginning of 0/8, I don't think that makes much sense. Do you want this to be independent of the rest of NUMA (guest) code? Then this is a different story. The purpose of this code is to pin _multiple_ guest nodes to _multiple_ different host nodes, something that is quite intricate to do otherwise. In a single node case you can easily use numactl (or whatever your OS provides). If you want to use this NUMA code on a single node guest anyway, you can easily say: "-numa 1,pin:2" or "-numa 1 -numa pin:2". Separating this pinning part out of the whole NUMA guest code will increase code complexity and IMHO is not justified, as OS provided methods are more portable for the single node case (currently this pinning is Linux only, which is backed by the original KVM target). I suppose -pin is too ambiguous, also you pin it to nodes, so something like -nodepin or -numapin would suggest itself. I just insert a space to the latter. Please tell me your opinion (and maybe a concrete suggestion on which syntax to use). Regards, Andre. P.S. Do you agree to Avi that the colon should be substituted by an equal-sign? -- Andre Przywara AMD-Operating System Research Center (OSRC), Dresden, Germany Tel: +49 351 277-84917 ----to satisfy European Law for business letters: AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG, Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Germany Register Court Dresden: HRA 4896, General Partner authorized to represent: AMD Saxony LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, US) General Manager of AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy