From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/24] libxl: introduce
	libxl__vnuma_config_check
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:50:23 +0000
Message-ID: <20150222155023.GY2159@zion.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1423770294-9779-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1423770294-9779-9-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<21726.1811.311219.353545@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<20150213151251.GE13644@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<CAEr7rXivACY4fJc_KzCsaPRNQbyR9aTsE8ZJWWysqZXcfhUPGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150213160635.GJ13644@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<CAEr7rXiqFXFOe-oytpsHkcv-yccj-yD8ZcyOm5Duj7kBFiqLkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1424191861.4235.98.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1424191861.4235.98.camel@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: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, "JBeulich@suse.com" <JBeulich@suse.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@citrix.com>, "ufimtseva@gmail.com" <ufimtseva@gmail.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 04:51:03PM +0000, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 11:11 -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:39:25AM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> 
> > >> Any sanity checks for distances?
> > >>
> > >
> > > The same applies, what is a valid distance what is not? I guess zero is
> > > not valid? Or do we enforce that the distance to local node must be
> > > smaller than or equal to the distance to remote node?
> > 
> > Yes, I think the second condition is enough for strict checking.
> > 
> That would not harm, probably but I honestly would not put down much
> enforcement on distance values. We can enforce non-zero values, we can
> enforce local < remote, we can enforce the symmetry of the distance
> matrix, but, really, I wouldn't go that far.
> 
> What matters most wrt specification of the distances, is to provide a
> sane default, in case one does not want to bother writing it down (or
> does not want to write it down completely, as it could be tedious).
> 
> So, if one does not say anything, we should come up with something that
> makes sense (and I'll say more about this while reviewing patch 24). If
> the user does say something, I would just go with that... perhaps after
> printing a warning, but no more than that.
> 

The checking here and a sensible default are two things and are parallel
to each other, I think.

I've come up with something like this, to enforce local distance not
larger than remote distance.

    /* Check vdistances */
    for (i = 0; i < b_info->num_vnuma_nodes; i++) {
        uint32_t local_distance, remote_distance;

        v = &b_info->vnuma_nodes[i];
        local_distance = v->distances[i];

        for (j = 0; j < v->num_distances; j++) {
            if (i == j) continue;
            remote_distance = v->distances[j];
            if (local_distance > remote_distance) {
                LOG(ERROR,
                    "Distance from %u to %u smaller than %u's local distance",
                    i, j, i);
                goto out;
            }
        }
    }

Wei.

> Regards,
> Dario