From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05 of 10 [RFC]] xl: Explicit node affinity
 specification for guests via config file
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:48:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4F86B313.5010708@citrix.com>
References: <patchbomb.1334150267@Solace>	<7e76233448b02810f0ae.1334150272@Solace>
	<4F86AD6E.3050705@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F86AD6E.3050705@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 12/04/12 11:24, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 11/04/12 14:17, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> 
>> --- a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
>> +++ b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
>> @@ -112,6 +112,15 @@ List of which cpus the guest is allowed
>>   (all vcpus will run on cpus 0,2,3,5), or `cpus=["2", "3"]` (all vcpus
>>   will run on cpus 2 and 3).
>>
>> +=item B<nodes=[ NODE, NODE, ...]>
>> +
>> +List of the NUMA nodes of the host the guest should be considered
>> +`affine` with. Being affine to a (set of) NUMA node(s) mainly means
>> +the guest's memory is going to be allocated on those node(s).
>> +
>> +A list of nodes should be specified as follows: `nodes=["0", "3"]`
>> +for the guest to be affine with nodes 0 and 3.
>> +
> Hmm, I think that using "affine" here is technically correct, and is
> what one would use if writing a research paper; but it's unusual to hear
> the word in more common English; it would be more common to hear someone
> describe a VM as "having affinity with".  How about something like this:
> 
> "The list of NUMA nodes the domain is considered to have affinity with. 
> Memory from the guest will be allocated from these nodes."

That's clunky sentence, the "considered" doesn't add anything.  Or perhaps:

"The NUMA nodes preferred by the guest.  Memory for the guest will be
allocated on these nodes."

The need for quotes around the node numbers is odd.  Can that
requirement be removed?

David