Martin Polednik has posted comments on this change. Change subject: numa: move cpu topology (numa) related functionality to sitelib ......................................................................
Patch Set 4: (5 comments) https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/53287/4//COMMIT_MSG Commit Message: Line 8: Line 9: The functionality can be nicely isolated and moved to sitelib, where Line 10: additional cleanup and optimization work can take place. This is part Line 11: of bigger series that attempts to move all numa related code to Line 12: sitelib where it makes sense. > looks identical to parent's commit message. Intentional? Am I missing somet it is kind of supposed to be identical as the previous patches were meant to 1) unify and isolate numa-topology related functionality and 2) move it to it's own module. Since cpu-topology related functionality is already nicely isolated, the patch is supposed to be identical to idea in 2) but aimed at cpu topo. Line 13: Line 14: Change-Id: Ie786e8a3626dd257c2a244decfe3e6a127d04b28 https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/53287/4/lib/vdsm/numa.py File lib/vdsm/numa.py: Line 91: cells = host.find('.//cells') Line 92: Line 93: sockets = set() Line 94: siblings = set() Line 95: onlineCpus = [] > let's use pep8 names Done Line 96: Line 97: for cpu in cells.iter(tag='cpu'): Line 98: if cpu.get('socket_id') is not None and \ Line 99: cpu.get('siblings') is not None: Line 100: onlineCpus.append(cpu.get('id')) Line 101: sockets.add(cpu.get('socket_id')) Line 102: siblings.add(cpu.get('siblings')) Line 103: Line 104: topology = {'sockets': len(sockets), > nice, but I believe Done Line 105: 'cores': len(siblings), Line 106: 'threads': len(onlineCpus), Line 107: 'onlineCpus': onlineCpus} Line 108: Line 105: 'cores': len(siblings), Line 106: 'threads': len(onlineCpus), Line 107: 'onlineCpus': onlineCpus} Line 108: Line 109: return topology > does it make sense to transform this into a namedtuple (perhaps into anothe It probably does, and followup patch brings us closer to that. I'll consider it in later patches. https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/53287/4/vdsm/caps.py File vdsm/caps.py: Line 421: Line 422: caps['kvmEnabled'] = str(os.path.exists('/dev/kvm')).lower() Line 423: Line 424: if config.getboolean('vars', 'report_host_threads_as_cores'): Line 425: caps['cpuCores'] = str(numa.cpu_topology()['threads']) > nit/personal taste: I'd invoke it once and dispatch the fields from the ret Agreed. Line 426: else: Line 427: caps['cpuCores'] = str(numa.cpu_topology()['cores']) Line 428: Line 429: caps['cpuThreads'] = str(numa.cpu_topology()['threads']) -- To view, visit https://gerrit.ovirt.org/53287 To unsubscribe, visit https://gerrit.ovirt.org/settings Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: Ie786e8a3626dd257c2a244decfe3e6a127d04b28 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Project: vdsm Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Owner: Martin Polednik <mpoled...@redhat.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Francesco Romani <from...@redhat.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins CI Gerrit-Reviewer: Martin Polednik <mpoled...@redhat.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: gerrit-hooks <automat...@ovirt.org> Gerrit-HasComments: Yes _______________________________________________ vdsm-patches mailing list vdsm-patches@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-patches