From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46151) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UpvJk-0000ga-QY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:59:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UpvJj-00034C-A8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:59:32 -0400 Received: from [222.73.24.84] (port=24720 helo=song.cn.fujitsu.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UpvIM-0001kP-W1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:59:31 -0400 Message-ID: <51C3F85B.5030907@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:53:15 +0800 From: Wanlong Gao MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20130619134252.22bdbc37@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <20130619132642.GD2825@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <20130620113030.79943476@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <51C2D0EA.7060204@redhat.com> <20130620132651.GG2825@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <51C303E7.0@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option Reply-To: gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Bandan Das Cc: Anthony Liguori , Eduardo Habkost , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Igor Mammedov , Paolo Bonzini , Wanlong Gao On 06/21/2013 12:02 AM, Bandan Das wrote: > Paolo Bonzini writes: > >> Il 20/06/2013 15:26, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:42AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> Il 20/06/2013 11:30, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: >>>>>>>>>>> So, basically the format seemed easier to work with if we are thinking >>>>>>>>>>> of using QemuOpts for -numa. Using -cpu rather than cpus probably >>>>>>>>>>> makes it less ambiguous as well IMO. However, it's probably not a good idea >>>>>>>>>>> if the current syntax is well established ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> libvirt uses the "cpus" option already, so we have to keep it working. >>>>> Sure, we can leave it as it's now for some time while a new interface is >>>>> introduced/adopted. And than later deprecate "cpus". >>>> >>>> So, you used a new name because the new behavior of "-numa >>>> node,cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" would be incompatible with the old. >>> >>> I don't think anybody uses "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" today, so I believe we >>> can change its behavior. The problem was to get agreement on the syntax >>> to represent multiple CPU ranges. >> >> Ok. I think almost everyone agreed on "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4", which is >> basically what Bandan's patch does minus s/cpu/cpus/. It matches what >> already happens with other options (SLIRP), so it's hardly surprising. > > Good, so should I spin a new version with "cpus" ? I already merged your patch to my patch set "Add support for binding guest numa nodes to host numa nodes" since I should base on that. Thanks, Wanlong Gao > > Also note that this patch actually doesn't add any extra code to support > multiple cpus arguments. It all happens automatically as part of conversion to > QemuOpts. So, if we need to revisit the syntax later, we can always do that. > > Bandan >> Let's go on with that. >> >> Paolo >> >>>> Personally I don't think that's a problem, but I remember a long >>>> discussion in the past. Igor/Eduardo, do you remember the conclusions? >>> >>> I don't remember seeing the discussion reach any conclusion, >>> unfortunately. >>> > >