On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:48 +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > On 02/03/15 17:43, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 02/03/15 17:34, David Vrabel wrote: > >> > >> A guest that previously had 2 vNUMA nodes is migrated to a host with > >> only 1 pNUMA node. It should still have 2 vNUMA nodes. > > > > A natural consequence of vNUMA is that the guest must expect the vNUMA > > layout to change across suspend/resume. The toolstack cannot guarentee > > that it can construct a similar vNUMA layout after a migration. This > > includes the toolstack indicating that it was unable to make any useful > > NUMA affinity with the memory ranges. > > Eep! I very much doubt we can do anything in Linux except retain the > existing NUMA layout across a save/restore.
In the case you mention above I would expect the 2 vnuma nodes to just point to the same single pnuma node. As such I think it's probably not relevant to the need for XEN_NO_NUMA_NODE? Or is that not would be expected? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
