From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] credit: generalize __vcpu_has_soft_affinity() Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:57:48 +0000 Message-ID: <54F9C06C.1080808@eu.citrix.com> References: <54F9672B0200007800066D4A@mail.emea.novell.com> <54F9792A.7030605@eu.citrix.com> <1425640326.12503.32.camel@citrix.com> <54F991A8.7090206@eu.citrix.com> <1425648697.12503.76.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YTthh-0001HQ-DK for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:58:17 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1425648697.12503.76.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Dario Faggioli , George Dunlap Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , "JBeulich@suse.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/06/2015 01:31 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:38 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 03/06/2015 11:12 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > >>> --- >>> Hard affinity balancing is always necessary and must never be skipped. >>> Soft affinity balancing is only useful if it, potentially, makes a >>> difference. >>> >>> In more details, there is no point checking soft affinity if: >>> * there is no online pCPU in the domain's cpupool that is not in the >>> soft affinity mask >>> * there is no pCPU in the hard affinity mask that is not in the soft >>> affinity mask >>> * there is no overlapping between the soft affinity mask and the mask >>> being considered (which, in most cases, is the hard affinity mask) >>> --- >> >> I think what you've said here is almost exactly the same thing as what I >> said, except using different words. (i.e., "X not a subset of Y" means >> "there are X which are not in Y") >> > Well, of course it is! I mean, it wouldn't have, if you comment were > wrong, which it wasn't. :-) > > It's also exactly my point. In fact, in this case, adding something like > what you're suggesting to the comment seems to me to be aimed at making > the reader able to understand the code faster, isn't it? If yes, then > the words "subset" is already used in the code, and suggesting to use > different words is the entire point I'm trying to make! :-) Well when you said "high level", I thought you meant explaining it in a different way or from a different perspective, as opposed to using non-Latin-based words. :-) -George