>> > However, I'll leave it up to those more familiar with the QEMU numa >> > control interface design to comment on whether this approach is preferable >> > to making the gi part of the numa node entry or doing it like hmat. >> >> > -numa srat-gi,node-id=10,gi-pci-dev=dev1 >> >> The current way of acpi-generic-initiator object usage came out of the >> discussion >> on v1 to essentially link all the device NUMA nodes to the device. >> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230926131427.1e441670.alex.william...@redhat.com/) >> >> Can Alex or David comment on which is preferable (the current mechanism vs >> 1:1 >> mapping per object as suggested by Jonathan)? > > I imagine there are ways that either could work, but specifying a > gi-pci-dev in the numa node declaration appears to get a bit messy if we > have multiple gi-pci-dev devices to associate to the node whereas > creating an acpi-generic-initiator object per individual device:node > relationship feels a bit easier to iterate. > > Also if we do extend the ACPI spec to more explicitly allow a device to > associate to multiple nodes, we could re-instate the list behavior of > the acpi-generic-initiator whereas I don't see a representation of the > association at the numa object that makes sense. Thanks,
Ack, making the change to create an individual acpi-generic-initiator object per device:node. Alex
