From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09 of 10 v3] libxl: have NUMA placement deal
 with cpupools
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:16:38 +0100
Message-ID: <1341933398.14378.3.camel@Abyss>
References: <patchbomb.1341418679@Solace>
	<885e2f385601d6617905.1341418688@Solace> <4FF6DD1B.60106@eu.citrix.com>
	<1341580217.15708.27.camel@Abyss> <4FF6E7B4.6070204@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2567432640340099399=="
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FF6E7B4.6070204@eu.citrix.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: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org


--===============2567432640340099399==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-REHu9IFlvVQ8XW0dK9lW"


--=-REHu9IFlvVQ8XW0dK9lW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 14:27 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:=20
> Why don't we do this: let's check in this version, so we can start=20
> getting the cpu placement stuff tested.  Then if there's time, you can=
=20
> post patches to do the filtering at the node generation stage rather=20
> than the filtering stage.  Does that make sense?
>=20
FYI, while at it, I modified the filtering, basically moving it at
nodemap generation time, so that it now should only generate and
consider the candidates that makes actual sense, taking the domain's
cpupool into account, without all those duplicates.

Thanks for pointing that out, I knew it was an issue, but did not
realize how ugly it was. :-)

Regards,
Dario

--=20
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)



--=-REHu9IFlvVQ8XW0dK9lW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk/8R1YACgkQk4XaBE3IOsSmagCgpokPoIq0Nhztj05rK9uNq5DG
W/kAnjrq/HDy5oOsUMm0/tEXjq7dwBDw
=Ggg3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-REHu9IFlvVQ8XW0dK9lW--



--===============2567432640340099399==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============2567432640340099399==--