From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxc bitmap utils and vcpu-affinity
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:05:27 +0000
Message-ID: <C7CE50F7.E2C9%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
References: <4BA8A1BC0200007800036662@vpn.id2.novell.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: <4BA8A1BC0200007800036662@vpn.id2.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>, Dulloor <dulloor@gmail.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 23/03/2010 10:10, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>>>> Dulloor <dulloor@gmail.com> 22.03.10 18:44 >>>
>> Motivation for using xenctl_cpumask in Xen interfaces :
>> - xenctl_cpumap is just 4 bytes smaller than static xenctl_cpumask for
>> 128 cpus (128 would be good for quite some time). However, the new
> 
> I don't buy this (we're already building for 256 CPUs, looking forward
> to further bump this in the not too distant future), and I'm generally
> opposed to introducing hard coded limits in a public interface.

We should use xenctl_cpumask everywhere for specifying physical CPU bitmaps,
even into guest NUMA interfaces if appropriate. I don't really care if it is
a bit harder to use than a static bitmap.

 -- Keir