> Am 09.01.2014 um 23:12 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>:
>
>> On 01/10/2014 08:00 AM, Mike Day wrote:
>>
>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> writes:
>>
>>> /* compute missing values, prefer sockets over cores over threads */
>>> if (cpus == 0 || sockets == 0) {
>>> sockets = sockets > 0 ? sockets : 1;
>>> cores = cores > 0 ? cores : 1;
>>> - threads = threads > 0 ? threads : 1;
>>> + if (threads_max) {
>>> + if (threads > 0) {
>>> + fprintf(stderr, "Use either threads or threads_max\n");
>>> + exit(1);
>>
>> If you went ahead with the threads="max" string option you wouldn't need
>> to check here for mutual excusivity and the user wouldn't need to worry
>> about an extra command options.
>
>
> Is this the only concern and the rest is fine and can go to upstream? If
> so, I'll fix it and repost.
What if we make the max thread count a property of our cpu class? The we can
add a threads=max option which will be identical between kvm and tcg.
Overall I'm not yet fully convinced this whole idea is eventually going to
improve the situation though.
Alex
>
>
>>> + }
>>> + threads = smp_threads > 0 ? smp_threads : 1;
>>> + } else {
>>> + threads = threads > 0 ? threads : 1;
>>> + }
>>> if (cpus == 0) {
>>> cpus = cores * threads * sockets;
>>> }
>
>
> --
> Alexey
