From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58166) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uq2gp-0004Q8-IR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:51:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uq2gm-0001vO-CN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:51:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46150) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uq2gm-0001uw-3i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:51:48 -0400 From: Bandan Das References: <20130619134252.22bdbc37@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <20130619132642.GD2825@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <20130620113030.79943476@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <51C2D0EA.7060204@redhat.com> <20130620132651.GG2825@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <51C303E7.0@redhat.com> <51C3F85B.5030907@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:51:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51C3F85B.5030907@cn.fujitsu.com> (Wanlong Gao's message of "Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:53:15 +0800") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com Cc: Anthony Liguori , Eduardo Habkost , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Igor Mammedov , Paolo Bonzini Wanlong Gao writes: > On 06/21/2013 12:02 AM, Bandan Das wrote: >> Paolo Bonzini writes: >> >>> Il 20/06/2013 15:26, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: >>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:42AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> Il 20/06/2013 11:30, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: >>>>>>>>>>>> So, basically the format seemed easier to work with if we are thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> of using QemuOpts for -numa. Using -cpu rather than cpus probably >>>>>>>>>>>> makes it less ambiguous as well IMO. However, it's probably not a good idea >>>>>>>>>>>> if the current syntax is well established ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> libvirt uses the "cpus" option already, so we have to keep it working. >>>>>> Sure, we can leave it as it's now for some time while a new interface is >>>>>> introduced/adopted. And than later deprecate "cpus". >>>>> >>>>> So, you used a new name because the new behavior of "-numa >>>>> node,cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" would be incompatible with the old. >>>> >>>> I don't think anybody uses "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" today, so I believe we >>>> can change its behavior. The problem was to get agreement on the syntax >>>> to represent multiple CPU ranges. >>> >>> Ok. I think almost everyone agreed on "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4", which is >>> basically what Bandan's patch does minus s/cpu/cpus/. It matches what >>> already happens with other options (SLIRP), so it's hardly surprising. >> >> Good, so should I spin a new version with "cpus" ? > > I already merged your patch to my patch set "Add support for binding guest numa nodes to host numa nodes" > since I should base on that. > > Thanks, > Wanlong Gao Oh, great! Thank you for taking care of the "cpus" change. >> >> Also note that this patch actually doesn't add any extra code to support >> multiple cpus arguments. It all happens automatically as part of conversion to >> QemuOpts. So, if we need to revisit the syntax later, we can always do that. >> >> Bandan >>> Let's go on with that. >>> >>> Paolo >>> >>>>> Personally I don't think that's a problem, but I remember a long >>>>> discussion in the past. Igor/Eduardo, do you remember the conclusions? >>>> >>>> I don't remember seeing the discussion reach any conclusion, >>>> unfortunately. >>>> >> >>