From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Emmanuel Ackaouy <ackaouy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] consider vcpu-pin weight on
	CreditScheduler TAKE2
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:52:32 +0200
Message-ID: <f9d8349820d4ab1cea1e40a3883018c3@gmail.com>
References: <C2A81716.1166C%keir@xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C2A81716.1166C%keir@xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com>
Cc: Atsushi SAKAI <sakaia@jp.fujitsu.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Jun 27, 2007, at 14:31, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Partitioning is a very sensible simplification in many (most?) cases, 
> but
> would need plumbing all the way up through xen-api, which is a pain. I 
> still
> suspect that the patch could be simplified even without interface 
> changes. I
> don't understand the need to add extra complexity on every accounting
> period.

If you don't want to change the API, the partitioning could just
automagically happen when all distinct cpu affinity masks set
using the existing interface are non-overlapping.