Re: [PATCH] xm --version

[aq <aquynh@gmail.com>]

On 6/6/05, Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > This patch adds to xm a long-missing function: showing xen
> > version and few extra information (thanks go to Keir and Mark
> > for some suggestions). Here is the ouput of "xm info" after
> > applying the patch (against -unstable ChangeSet@1.1677):
> 
> Thanks, but I'd like to make another couple of suggestions:
> 
> > ---
> > #xm info
> > system                 : Linux
> > host                   : ubuntu
> > xen_release            : 3.0-devel
> > xen_compile_by         : root@localdomain
> > xen_compiler           : gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-8ubuntu2)
> > xen_compile_date       : Mon Jun  6 00:30:22 EST 2005
> > dom0_release           : 2.6.11.10-xen0
> > dom0_version           : #3 Mon Jun 6 00:32:05 EST 2005
> > machine                : i686
> 
> Where does 'machine' come from? Shouldn't it be x86_32?

this is not what the patch does, but in the original code. actually
"machine" is from "uname" syscall, run in dom0. libxc just gets the
result from "uname", together with dom0_release, dom0_version.

should we fix it to x86_32 or x86_64?

> 
> Also, isn't there a tools version field we could print as well?
> 
yes, that is fine, but where to get the xm version? lets put it
somewhere into xm code? i am not sure where to put it. and actually
what is the current version of xm? we better ask Mike to help this
problem?

> > cores                  : 1
> > hyperthreads_per_core  : 1
> 
> I'd like to add a bit more information here, to take of ccNUMA systems
> with multicore and hyperthreadsing, e.g. for a system with 2 dual core
> hyperthreaded Xeons:
> 
> logical_cpus            : 8

sorry for my ignorance (never play with 2 or more cpus system before,
poor me!), how come 2 dual core hyperthreaded Xeons has "8 logical
cpus"? you must meant "4 logical cpus"

> hyperthreads_per_core   : 2
> cores_per_socket                : 2
> sockets_per_node                : 2
> nodes                           : 1
> 
> This information should reflect the running system, rather than the
> capabilities of the hardware. i.e. if someone has booted with 'noht'
> then hyperthreads_per_core should be 1 regardless of the hardware. This
> will clean up some other code in Xen that uses the flag.

i see, but how about applying this patch now, and solve what you
propose above later? i will investigate this problem.

regards,
aq