On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 13:43 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> To summarise this discussion so far.
>
> Conceptually speaking, the guest should not need to know the mapping.
> The translation from vnode to pnode should happen in hypervisor without
> guest knowing.
>
> Jan, Dario and David (and I) are all in
To summarise this discussion so far.
Conceptually speaking, the guest should not need to know the mapping.
The translation from vnode to pnode should happen in hypervisor without
guest knowing.
Jan, Dario and David (and I) are all in favor of *not* exposing the
mapping (though starting from diffe
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:42:07PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:09 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:51:28AM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > > I'm 100% ok to re-start that discussion here and now... however, how
> > > stable should this interface b
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:27 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:21:40AM +, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 10/11/14 11:09, Wei Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > 3. Don't expose anything, everything happens automagically without guest
> > >knowing anything.
> >
> > This. The vnode to pnode
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 11:09 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:51:28AM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>
> > I'm 100% ok to re-start that discussion here and now... however, how
> > stable should this interface be? Can't we deal with this when actually
> > implementing NUMA aware ballo
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:21:40AM +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 10/11/14 11:09, Wei Liu wrote:
> >
> > 3. Don't expose anything, everything happens automagically without guest
> >knowing anything.
>
> This. The vnode to pnode mapping can change on a save/restore.
I don't think this is th
On 10/11/14 11:09, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> 3. Don't expose anything, everything happens automagically without guest
>knowing anything.
This. The vnode to pnode mapping can change on a save/restore.
David
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:51:28AM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 10:00 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:21:24AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >>> On 08.11.14 at 20:43, wrote:
> > > > This information is passed in in domctl hypercall but the guest
> > >
>>> On 10.11.14 at 11:51, wrote:
> I'm 100% ok to re-start that discussion here and now... however, how
> stable should this interface be? Can't we deal with this when actually
> implementing NUMA aware ballooning and add stuff at than point, if
> necessary?
Wei's desire to have a stable interfac
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 10:00 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:21:24AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 08.11.14 at 20:43, wrote:
> > > This information is passed in in domctl hypercall but the guest
> > > interface doesn't expose it to guest. PV NUMA-aware ballooning relies on
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:21:24AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.11.14 at 20:43, wrote:
> > This information is passed in in domctl hypercall but the guest
> > interface doesn't expose it to guest. PV NUMA-aware ballooning relies on
> > this piece of information to function properly.
>
>
>>> On 08.11.14 at 20:43, wrote:
> This information is passed in in domctl hypercall but the guest
> interface doesn't expose it to guest. PV NUMA-aware ballooning relies on
> this piece of information to function properly.
Considering that exposing this mapping is wrong from a conceptual
pov (as
Targeting this patch for 4.5 because I don't want to release an
incomplete interface.
Not sure if this topic has been discussed. If it has and the decision
was to not expose the mapping, please ignore this patch.
Wei.
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-dev
This information is passed in in domctl hypercall but the guest
interface doesn't expose it to guest. PV NUMA-aware ballooning relies on
this piece of information to function properly.
Also fixed one typo while I was there.
Signed-off-by: Wei Liu
Cc: Elena Ufimtseva
Cc: Jan Beulich
Cc: Konrad
14 matches
Mail list logo
