From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LCjiw-0000Hb-LB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:53:10 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LCjiv-0000EP-H4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:53:10 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51018 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LCjiv-0000Dy-9F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:53:09 -0500 Received: from outbound-wa4.frontbridge.com ([216.32.181.16]:46901 helo=WA4EHSOBE004.bigfish.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LCjiu-0002jm-Vi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:53:09 -0500 Message-ID: <49483F56.7020703@amd.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:52:54 +0100 From: Andre Przywara MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4947B819.9090307@amd.com> <49481AAD.5060501@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <49481AAD.5060501@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/8] v2: add info numa monitor command 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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity Anthony Liguori wrote: > So the current code limits us to 64-cpus? That's a pretty serious > limitation IMHO. I know, but I was hoping that a simpler patch would be easier to merge. So I am happy to fix it later and lift this restriction. I searched for some kind of variable length bitmap type (like Linux' cpu_set_t) already being used in QEMU, but couldn't find anything appropriate. Do you know something? If you look at the glibc cpu_set_t implementation (in bits/sched.h), you surely want to make this a separate patch. > I think that strongly suggests we're using the wrong > structures for node_to_cpus--especially to be in the BIOS FW interface. Ok, this could be a point, but is this BIOS FW interface really a stable interface we cannot change later easily? IMHO this is QEMU (and derived projects) only, which always provide a matching BIOS anyway. What about if I prepare the BIOS FW interface for future expansion and stick to the current uint64_t type for now? Regards, Andre. And by the way: 64 core machines are _not_ common today, especially not when hosting pure QEMU :-) -- Andre Przywara AMD-Operating System Research Center (OSRC), Dresden, Germany Tel: +49 351 277-84917 ----to satisfy European Law for business letters: AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG, Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Germany Register Court Dresden: HRA 4896, General Partner authorized to represent: AMD Saxony LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, US) General Manager of AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy