From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] xen: numa-sched: leave node-affinity alone if not in "auto" mode Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:45:00 +0000 Message-ID: <5279046C.1010901@eu.citrix.com> References: <20131003174413.28472.8989.stgit@Solace> <20131003174555.28472.67383.stgit@Solace> <5278FECC.4040703@eu.citrix.com> <527910BF02000078000FFA29@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <527910BF02000078000FFA29@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Marcus Granado , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Li Yechen , Andrew Cooper , Dario Faggioli , Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Matt Wilson , Justin Weaver , Daniel De Graaf , Elena Ufimtseva , JuergenGross List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/05/2013 02:37 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 05.11.13 at 15:21, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 10/03/2013 06:45 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>> If the domain's NUMA node-affinity is being specified by the >>> user/toolstack (instead of being automatically computed by Xen), >>> we really should stick to that. This means domain_update_node_affinity() >>> is wrong when it filters out some stuff from there even in "!auto" >>> mode. >>> >>> This commit fixes that. Of course, this does not mean node-affinity >>> is always honoured (e.g., a vcpu won't run on a pcpu of a different >>> cpupool) but the necessary logic for taking into account all the >>> possible situations lives in the scheduler code, where it belongs. >>> >>> What could happen without this change is that, under certain >>> circumstances, the node-affinity of a domain may change when the >>> user modifies the vcpu-affinity of the domain's vcpus. This, even >>> if probably not a real bug, is at least something the user does >>> not expect, so let's avoid it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli >>> Reviewed-by: George Dunlap >>> --- >>> This has been submitted already as a single patch on its own. >>> Since this series needs the change done here, just include it >>> in here, instead of pinging the original submission and deferring >>> posting this series. >> >> Kier / Jan: And as this is actually independent of the rest of the >> series, and already has my reviewed-by, it can be applied right now >> without waiting for the rest of the series to be reviewed. > > Right. It needs Keir's ack in any case. > > But then again this was patch 3 in a series posted over a month > ago (and being a mishmash of hypervisor and tools patches), so > I would have > - considered it stale by now, expecting a re-submission > - expected to be told that it can be applied on its own Yes, that's what I was doing. :-) -George