From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: PV-vNUMA issue: topology is misinterpreted by the
 guest
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:44:52 -0400
Message-ID: <55B26B84.1000101@oracle.com>
References: <55AFAC34.1060606@oracle.com> <55B070ED.2040200@suse.com>
	<1437660433.5036.96.camel@citrix.com> <55B21364.5040906@suse.com>
	<1437749076.4682.47.camel@citrix.com>
	<55B25650.4030402@suse.com> <55B258C9.4040400@suse.com>
	<1437753509.4682.78.camel@citrix.com>
	<20150724160948.GA2067@l.oracle.com> <55B26570.1060008@suse.com>
	<20150724162911.GC2220@l.oracle.com> <55B26A45.2050402@suse.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.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>) id 1ZIg6R-0004FV-1A
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:45:43 +0000
In-Reply-To: <55B26A45.2050402@suse.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: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 07/24/2015 12:39 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
>
> I don't say mangling cpuids can't solve the scheduling problem. It
> surely can. But it can't solve the scheduling problem without hiding
> information like number of sockets or cores which might be required
> for license purposes. If we don't care, fine.
>

(this is somewhat repeating the email I just sent)

Why can's we construct socket/core info with CPUID (and *possibly* ACPI 
changes) that we present a reasonable (licensing-wise) picture?

Can you suggest an example where it will not work and then maybe we can 
figure something out?

-boris