Re: [v7 PATCH 03/10] xen: derive NUMA node affinity from hard and soft CPU affinity

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 06/10/2014 04:20 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On mar, 2014-06-10 at 15:53 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 06/10/2014 01:44 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>> if a domain's NUMA node-affinity (which is what controls
>>> memory allocations) is provided by the user/toolstack, it
>>> just is not touched. However, if the user does not say
>>> anything, leaving it all to Xen, let's compute it in the
>>> following way:
>>>
>>>    1. cpupool's cpus & hard-affinity & soft-affinity
>>>    2. if (1) is empty: cpupool's cpus & hard-affinity
>>>
>>> This guarantees memory to be allocated from the narrowest
>>> possible set of NUMA nodes, ad makes it relatively easy to
>>> set up NUMA-aware scheduling on top of soft affinity.
>>>
>>> Note that such 'narrowest set' is guaranteed to be non-empty.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> ---
>>> Chenges from v6:
>>>    * fixed a bug when a domain was being created inside a
>>>      cpupool;
>> This definitely should have erased the Reviewed-by, as it implies I
>> reviewed the bug fix.
>>
> Right! Sorry for that. I actually wanted to do it, but I just forgot to
> before pressing enter on `stg email'! :-(
>
>> Also, just curious, did you rename these variables since the last series?
>>
>> Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
>>
> Thanks and sorry again. So, for v8, should I kill the Reviewed-by and
> replace it with the Acked-by?

Yes, I think so -- basically I haven't had time to do a thorough review 
of the cpupool stuff, but at a first glance it looks good.  I can do so 
if needed.

  -George