On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:42:37 +0800 Tao Xu <tao3...@intel.com> wrote: > On 2/6/19 6:11 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:16:54 +0800 > > Tao Xu <tao3...@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Liu Jingqi <jingqi....@intel.com> > >> > >> Add -numa hmat-lb option to provide System Locality Latency and > >> Bandwidth Information. These memory attributes help to build > >> System Locality Latency and Bandwidth Information Structure(s) > >> in ACPI Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table (HMAT). > > Maybe instead of adding/using more globals since the rest of numa.c was > > written so, it's time to introduce NumaMachine type which inherits > > form base Machine and extends it with numa extensions. > > > > You don't have to refactor all old numa code for that (just the parts > > you use in HMAT) and later we could gradually refactor the rest of > > numa handling. > > > Hi Igor, > > I am sorry for replying after so long, because I am preparing the next > version of patch and confusing about the implementation of NumaMachine. > If NumaMachine inherits from Machine, and then the PCmachine and other > platform machine inherits from NumaMachine (Implementation a)? Or > PCmachine and other platform machine inherits from Machine > (Implementation b)? > > Implementation a: Implementation b: > Machine Machine > │ │ > └── NumaMachine ├── NumaMachine > │ │ > ├── PCMachine ├── PCMachine > │ │ > └── none-PCMachine └── none-PCMachine
I'd imagine 'a', where none-PCMachine is arm/virt and spapr machines that support numa today. The rest would inherit from plain Machine. > And how about add numa.c's globals into MachineState? This may not > change a lot. That's another possible way, but it's polluting generic machine with numa specifics about which only 3-4 boards care. From my point of view it's a bit better then globals but not much. > Looking forward to your reply. > > Tao >
