From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LCjue-000885-0Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:05:16 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LCjud-00087c-9P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:05:15 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46490 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LCjud-00087Y-6P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:05:15 -0500
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.158]:23012)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1LCjuc-0003um-Nt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:05:14 -0500
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so1578744ywa.82
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49484235.7080700@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:05:09 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4947B784.8020300@amd.com> <49481A15.6080402@codemonkey.ws>
	<49483A64.3040607@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <49483A64.3040607@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/8] v2: introduce -numa command line option
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

Andre Przywara wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> +        if (i == numnumanodes) {
>>> +            for (i = 0; i < smp_cpus; i++)
>>> +                node_to_cpus[i % numnumanodes] |= 1<<i;
>>>   
>>
>> The way CPUs are allocate here seems strange?  Each CPU is assigned 
>> round robin?  Should you have node 0 contain 1..X, node 1 contain 
>> X..Y, node 2 contain Y..smp_cpus?
> This is because an algorithm to do it this way is more complicated 
> than this round-robin scheme (imagine distributing 8 CPUs over 3 
> nodes). Actually I know machines which do this natively (probably for 
> the same reason, code simplicity in the BIOS). OSes can cope with my 
> variant too, there is no guarantee that sequentially numbered CPUs 
> belong to one node.
> But if you insist, I fix it.

It just surprised me.  If there's a reason you picked this, that would 
be a good reason to stick in a comment :-)

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Regards,
> Andre.
>