From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/15] xen: sched: DOMCTL_*vcpuaffinity
 works with hard and soft affinity
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:17:40 +0000
Message-ID: <5295FF04.9010003@eu.citrix.com>
References: <20131122183332.11200.20231.stgit@Solace>
	<20131122185758.11200.44816.stgit@Solace>
	<5295FDA702000078001078EC@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>) id 1Vlfw4-0005np-7E
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:17:48 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5295FDA702000078001078EC@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: Marcus Granado <Marcus.Granado@eu.citrix.com>, Justin Weaver <jtweaver@hawaii.edu>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Li Yechen <lccycc123@gmail.com>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Elena Ufimtseva <ufimtseva@gmail.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 11/27/2013 01:11 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.11.13 at 19:57, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
>> +            /*
>> +             * Report back to the caller what the "effective affinity", that
>> +             * is the intersection of cpupool's pcpus, the (new?) hard
>> +             * affinity and the (new?) soft-affinity.
>> +             */
>> +            if ( !guest_handle_is_null(op->u.vcpuaffinity.eff_cpumap.bitmap) )
>>               {
>> -                ret = vcpu_set_affinity(v, new_affinity);
>> -                free_cpumask_var(new_affinity);
>> +                online = cpupool_online_cpumask(v->domain->cpupool);
>> +                cpumask_and(new_affinity, online, v->cpu_hard_affinity);
>> +                if ( op->u.vcpuaffinity.flags & XEN_VCPUAFFINITY_SOFT)
>> +                    cpumask_and(new_affinity, new_affinity,
>> +                                v->cpu_soft_affinity);
>> +
>> +                ret = cpumask_to_xenctl_bitmap(
>> +                    &op->u.vcpuaffinity.eff_cpumap, new_affinity);
> So with both flags set, how is the caller supposed to know what
> hard affinity is now in effect? I said on the previous version already
> that with you _having_ two CPU masks, you should return both.

If I recall the timing correctly, I think this series was sent out 
before you guys had come to that conclusion on the other thread.

  -George