On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 09:19 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > ... by introducing a "dom0_nodes" option augmenting the "dom0_mem" and > "dom0_max_vcpus" ones. > > Note that this gives meaning to MEMF_exact_node specified alone (i.e. > implicitly combined with NUMA_NO_NODE): In such a case any node inside > the domain's node mask is acceptable, but no other node. This changed > behavior is (implicitly) being exposed through the memop hypercalls. > > Note further that this change doesn't take care of moving the initrd > image into memory matching Dom0's affinity when the initrd doesn't get > copied (because of being part of the initial mapping) anyway. > > And note finally that this doesn't get us meaningfully closer to > handing vNUMA information to Dom0 (which will require the current > striping of allocations to become node-specific in order for the passed > on information to be meaningful). > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> > --- > v2: Use MAX_NUMNODES sized array for storing PXMs. Implement relaxed > mode. Minor other cleanup. > Reviewed-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@cirix.com>
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
