From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LBlOU-0002M0-0h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:28:02 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LBlOS-0002Lo-6C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:28:00 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36965 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LBlOS-0002Ll-2K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:28:00 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47453) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LBlOR-0004Hx-M3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:27:59 -0500 Message-ID: <4944B576.9040508@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:27:50 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4940F9B5.9080206@amd.com> <49427CE1.4050108@codemonkey.ws> <49438371.9060304@redhat.com> <4943EE6C.8030508@amd.com> <49444855.3060605@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <49444855.3060605@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/3] NUMA: promoting NUMA topology to BIOS and pin guest memory Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Andre Przywara , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Anthony Liguori wrote: >> ACK. Actually I'd had to add code to prevent pinning from the command >> line. I think this doesn't hurt, if you use virtualization for >> partitioning (where a NUMA architecture can actually help you, >> because guests don't compete will all other guests for the memory >> bandwidth), it is quite helpful to specify everything at the beginning. > > The thing that makes me uneasy about it is the fact that it's part of > the base numa syntax. This combination of guest configuration and > host configuration seems less than optimal to me. This isn't > something that bothers me that much and won't keep me from applying > the patches. I also think that it would be good to separate guest and host configuration, like -net nic and -net tap. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function