From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Still TODO for 4.2? xl domain numa memory
 allocation vs xm/xend
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:31:08 +0000
Message-ID: <1327077068.23358.97.camel@elijah>
References: <1325694562.25206.304.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20120119211430.GT12984@reaktio.net>
	<1327046368.21391.29.camel@dagon.hellion.org.uk>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1201201048460.3150@kaball-desktop>
	<1327058562.17599.134.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<1327059874.2337.38.camel@Abyss>
	<1327060480.30054.15.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<1327061083.2337.42.camel@Abyss>
	<1327062788.30054.31.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<1327065091.30054.43.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<1327071976.30054.55.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<1327075340.2337.50.camel@Abyss>
	<1327076495.30054.63.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<1327076924.30054.65.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <1327076924.30054.65.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, "Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, "Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@xen.org>, Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 16:28 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 16:21 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > cpupools don't seem to do this, I don't know if that is expected or not.
> 
> Right, so cpupools do not appear to set the vcpu affinity, at least not
> at the level where it effects memory allocation. However both
> 	pool="Pool-node0" cpus="0-7"
> and
> 	pool="Pool-node1" cpus="8-15"
> work as expected on a system with 8 cpus per node.
> 
> Should something be doing this pinning automatically?

It seems like it would be useful; But then we have the issue of, if a vm
was pinned to cpus 0-3 of Pool-node0, and you move it to Pool-node1,
what do you do?

 -George