Re: [PATCH 1/1] xl.cfg man page cleanup and fixes

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2638 bytes --]

On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 22:47 +0200, Armando Vega wrote:
> From: Armando Vega <arm@ndov.net>
>  =item "all"
>  
> -To allow all the vcpus of the guest to run on all the cpus on the
> host.
> +To allow all the vCPUs of the guest to run on all the CPUs on the
> host.
>  
>  =item "0-3,5,^1"
>  
> -To allow all the vcpus of the guest to run on cpus 0,2,3,5.
> Combining
> -this with "all" is possible, meaning "all,^7" results in all the
> vcpus
> -of the guest running on all the cpus on the host except cpu 7.
> +To allow all the vCPUs of the guest to run on CPUs 0,2,3,5. It is
> possible to
> +combine this with "all", meaning "all,^7" results in all the vCPUs
> +of the guest being allowed to run on all the CPUs of the host except
> CPU 7.
>  
>  =item "nodes:0-3,node:^2"
>
As said in the other email, this is wrong. Should be
"nodes:0-3,^node:2".

 
> -To allow all the vcpus of the guest to run on the cpus from NUMA
> nodes
> -0,1,3 of the host. So, if cpus 0-3 belongs to node 0, cpus 4-7
> belongs
> -to node 1 and cpus 8-11 to node 3, the above would mean all the
> vcpus
> -of the guest will run on cpus 0-3,8-11.
> +To allow all the vCPUs of the guest to run on the CPUs from NUMA
> nodes
> +0,1,3 of the host. So, if CPUs 0-3 belong to node 0, CPUs 4-7 belong
> +to node 1, CPUs 8-11 to node 2 and CPUs 12-15 to node 3, the above
> would mean
> +all the vCPUs of the guest would be allowed to run on CPUs 0-7,12-
> 15.
>  
Yes, here again, the original was wrong, and you're proposed fix is
correct.

>  Combining this notation with the one above is possible. For
> instance,
> -"1,node:2,^6", means all the vcpus of the guest will run on cpu 1
> and
> -on all the cpus of NUMA node 2, but not on cpu 6. Following the same
> -example as above, that would be cpus 1,4,5,7.
> +"1,node:1,^6", means all the vCPUs of the guest will run on CPU 1
> and
> +on all the CPUs of NUMA node 1, but not on CPU 6. Following the same
> +example as above, that would be CPUs 1,4,5,7.
>  
Correct again (your version).

And I've also had a look to some other hunks, in particular, the ones
about scheduling parameters, and they all look fine to me.

So, with the above "nodes:^x" fixed, this patch can have my:

Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>

Thanks for all the good work!
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel