On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 10:51 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 27.02.15 at 15:54, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > The idea is that, whether the mask is full because no one touched this > > default, or because it has been manually set like that, there is nothing > > to do at the soft affinity balancing level. > > In that case I think __vcpu_has_soft_affinity() simply isn't general > enough: Along with checking whether all bits are set in the > soft affinity, it should also check whether soft is a subset of hard > (or the passed in second mask). And really it should imo also cover > the case where not all bits are set in the mask, but all those > corresponding to online CPUs (both of which ought to have the > same effect) > I'm fine with this. > That would then leave introducing a "relaxed (or "strict", > depending on what we'd like to be the default) mode in the patch > here, controlling whether ->cpu_hard_affinity gets overridden > (and we'd always override ->cpu_soft_affinity). > And with this too... I'll comment the code in the other email, the one with the patch. Regards, Dario
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
