On 06/08/2017 02:56 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 22:47 +0200, Armando Vega wrote:
>> From: Armando Vega <arm@ndov.net>
>>  =item "all"
>>  
>> -To allow all the vcpus of the guest to run on all the cpus on the
>> host.
>> +To allow all the vCPUs of the guest to run on all the CPUs on the
>> host.
>>  
>>  =item "0-3,5,^1"
>>  
>> -To allow all the vcpus of the guest to run on cpus 0,2,3,5.
>> Combining
>> -this with "all" is possible, meaning "all,^7" results in all the
>> vcpus
>> -of the guest running on all the cpus on the host except cpu 7.
>> +To allow all the vCPUs of the guest to run on CPUs 0,2,3,5. It is
>> possible to
>> +combine this with "all", meaning "all,^7" results in all the vCPUs
>> +of the guest being allowed to run on all the CPUs of the host except
>> CPU 7.
>>  
>>  =item "nodes:0-3,node:^2"
>>
> As said in the other email, this is wrong. Should be
> "nodes:0-3,^node:2".
>
>  
>> -To allow all the vcpus of the guest to run on the cpus from NUMA
>> nodes
>> -0,1,3 of the host. So, if cpus 0-3 belongs to node 0, cpus 4-7
>> belongs
>> -to node 1 and cpus 8-11 to node 3, the above would mean all the
>> vcpus
>> -of the guest will run on cpus 0-3,8-11.
>> +To allow all the vCPUs of the guest to run on the CPUs from NUMA
>> nodes
>> +0,1,3 of the host. So, if CPUs 0-3 belong to node 0, CPUs 4-7 belong
>> +to node 1, CPUs 8-11 to node 2 and CPUs 12-15 to node 3, the above
>> would mean
>> +all the vCPUs of the guest would be allowed to run on CPUs 0-7,12-
>> 15.
>>  
> Yes, here again, the original was wrong, and you're proposed fix is
> correct.
>
>>  Combining this notation with the one above is possible. For
>> instance,
>> -"1,node:2,^6", means all the vcpus of the guest will run on cpu 1
>> and
>> -on all the cpus of NUMA node 2, but not on cpu 6. Following the same
>> -example as above, that would be cpus 1,4,5,7.
>> +"1,node:1,^6", means all the vCPUs of the guest will run on CPU 1
>> and
>> +on all the CPUs of NUMA node 1, but not on CPU 6. Following the same
>> +example as above, that would be CPUs 1,4,5,7.
>>  
> Correct again (your version).
>
> And I've also had a look to some other hunks, in particular, the ones
> about scheduling parameters, and they all look fine to me.
>
> So, with the above "nodes:^x" fixed, this patch can have my:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
>
> Thanks for all the good work!
> Dario

Thanks for the clarification and the testing Dario, I'll make sure to fix it in
the respin!

kind regards,
Armando