Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 09/14] xen: sched: DOMCTL_*vcpuaffinity works with hard and soft affinity

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/25/2013 10:00 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 25.11.13 at 10:54, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On lun, 2013-11-25 at 09:32 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 22.11.13 at 19:55, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Therefore, I kept this interface as it was here, also considering that:
> > > >   - it's pretty late to re-re-redesign;
> > > >   - neither this nor the xc one are stable interfaces, so we can come
> > > >     back and revisit this later, if we want to.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think this could be acceptable?
> > > I wouldn't veto it, but I also dislike reduced flexibility when more
> > > flexibility is obviously achievable without much effort.
> > Ok, understood. Ok, I'm up for changing this then. So, let m ask a few
> > questions, just to make sure ot get it right this time! ;-P
> >
> > You are saying the interface should look as follows:
> >
> >   int xc_vcpu_setaffinity(xc_interface *xch,
> >                           uint32_t domid,
> >                           int vcpu,
> >                           xc_cpumap_t cpumap_soft,
> >                           xc_cpumap_t cpumap_hard,
> >                           uint32_t flags);
> >
> > Where both cpumap_soft and cpumap_hard are IN/OUT parameters and, as far
> > as OUT is concerned:
> >   - cpumap_hard will contain hard-affinity&online
> >   - cpumap_soft will contain what?
> >    (a) soft-affinity?
> >    (b) soft-affinity&online
> >    (c) soft-affinity&hard-affinity&online?
> (c) seems the best fit - after all it should represent what the
> hypervisor will effectively use.
+1


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