On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:42:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 20:36 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > Originally, if user didn't specify maxvcpus= in xl config file, the > > maximum size of vcpu bitmap was always equal to maximum number of pcpus. > > This might not be what user wants. > > What are you suggesting they wanted instead? We are only talking about the > bitmap right, and the typical/sensible config will have #vcpus <= #pcpus, > so they will fit even if they "waste" some bits during parsing.
#vcpus > #pcpus, bitmap is too small. > > I'm almost inclined to suggest that if a user wants #vcpus > #pcpus they > should have to specify maxvcpus and not rely on the vnuma parsing code > inferring this fact. > I don't think we should prevent people from shooting themselves in the foot. > IOW maybe this code could just error out (or print a warning) if this > happens? + a doc update. > Xl doesn't complain when you set vcpus > pcpus. I don't think vNUMA should behave differently. Wei. > > Calculate the maximum number of vcpus before allocating vcpu bitmap. > > This requires parsing the same config options twice. Extra a macro to do > > that. > > I'm not sure a macro was really the right answer here. e.g. a function > which takes a pointer to a bitmap, if the bitmap is null return the size > which would be needed, otherwise fill in the bitmap, or something. That > could also be split more obviously into a refactoring step and then the > addition of the new checks. > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > > --- > > Valgrind is still clean after this patch applied. > > > > This patch looks massive because it involves indentation changes, but in > > fact the meat of it is small. > > Even with -b it's impossible to read. > > Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
