On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:13:07PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:23PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:43:31PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:45:09PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:19
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:23PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:43:31PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:45:09PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:19:42AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:52:22AM +1
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:43:31PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:45:09PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:19:42AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:52:22AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >>>I did look at the libnuma and
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:45:09PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:19:42AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:52:22AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
>I did look at the libnuma and cgroups approaches, but I was concerned they
>wouldn't work in this case, be
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:19:42AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:52:22AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:16AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:27
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:52:22AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:16AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:04:53PM +1
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:16AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:04:53PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >>>At the moment, guests that ar
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:16AM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:04:53PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
>At the moment, guests that are backed by hugepages in the host are
>only able to use policy to control the
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:48:07AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 15:04:53 +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> > At the moment, guests that are backed by hugepages in the host are
> > only able to use policy to control the placement of those hugepages
> > on a per-(guest-)CPU basis. P
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:04:53PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> >At the moment, guests that are backed by hugepages in the host are
> >only able to use policy to control the placement of those hugepages
> >on a per-(guest-)CPU basi
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:04:53PM +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
At the moment, guests that are backed by hugepages in the host are
only able to use policy to control the placement of those hugepages
on a per-(guest-)CPU basis. Policy applied globally is ignored.
Such guests would use and
a block
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 15:04:53 +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> At the moment, guests that are backed by hugepages in the host are
> only able to use policy to control the placement of those hugepages
> on a per-(guest-)CPU basis. Policy applied globally is ignored.
>
> Such guests would use and
> a
At the moment, guests that are backed by hugepages in the host are
only able to use policy to control the placement of those hugepages
on a per-(guest-)CPU basis. Policy applied globally is ignored.
Such guests would use and
a block with but no elements.
This patch corrects this by, in this s
13 matches
Mail list logo
