From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] hvm: NUMA guest: extend memops hypercall Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:54:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <486E1C27.300@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <486E1C27.300@amd.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Andre Przywara Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 4/7/08 13:48, "Andre Przywara" wrote: >> Looking some more, I still don't see that this patch can work. Don't the >> subfunctions in memory.c go and OR in MEMF_node() values on top of what the >> caller may have specified?? > Maybe I don't get your question right, but the only part where the > caller specified node number is used is the line I handled in the last > patch. Later they only use the member memflags of struct memop_args, not > struct xen_memory_reservation. If the node number is not specified (or > blocked), it will be later determined by looking at the current > scheduled pCPU (and thus node), but this is the current behavior anyway. Take common/memory.c:populate_physmap() as a specific example. It unconditionally specifies MEMF_node() in its invocation of alloc_domheap_pages(), regardless of whether its caller has already specified a node in the memop_args structure that is passed into it. -- Keir