On ven, 2014-09-12 at 10:31 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:02:30AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:

> > If, with 'memory ranges', you mean the possibility of specifying
> > different memory size for each node, I think I'd keep this.
> > 
> > In fact, bbout memory, I'm fine with how you right now deal with
> > vnuma_mem (which I suggested to rename to "vnuma_memory" or
> > "vnuma_maxmem"), i.e.:
> > 
> 
> I don't thin vnuma_maxmem reflects what this parameter means. The list
> controls distribution of memory not the maximum amount. The sum of this
> list should be equal to maxmem= in config file.
> 
I think you're right. And until we won't have NUMA aware ballooning,
what the maximum amount is will be a bit fuzzy! :-P

So, "vnuma_memory" it is, then. :-)

Regards,
Dario

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