From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lup9q-0006Ug-59 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:35:10 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lup9l-0006SO-10 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:35:09 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40357 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lup9k-0006SG-HV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:35:04 -0400 Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:42921) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lup9k-0003q0-6M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:35:04 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3HEVlFe032728 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:31:47 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n3HEZ2So084918 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:35:02 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n3HEZ0gP009298 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:35:02 -0600 Message-ID: <49E8938E.90007@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:34:54 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1239202215-9206-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <1239202215-9206-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] v2: add NUMA emulation Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andre Przywara Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi Andre, I don't understand why it's so difficult to eliminate the 64 CPU limit. I'm willing to take these patches with the limit but I'd like to see the following: The -numa stuff needs to be more defensive when -smp > 64. Specificially, it needs to explicitly check and warn the user if a NUMA node contains a CPU > 64. Each patch needs some description of what it's doing. All patches need a SoB. Regards, Anthony Liguori