Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: vNUMA project

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 11.11.14 at 19:03, <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/11/14 17:36, Wei Liu wrote:
>> Option #1 requires less modification to guest, because guest won't
>> need to switch to new hypercall. It's unclear at this point if a guest
>> asks to populate a gpfn that doesn't belong to any vnode, what Xen
>> should do about it. Should it be permissive or strict? 
> 
> There are XENMEMF flags to request exact node or not  -- leave it up to
> the balloon driver.  The Linux balloon driver could try exact on all
> nodes before falling back to permissive or just always try inexact.
> 
> Perhaps a XENMEMF_vnode bit to indicate the node is virtual?

Yes. The only bad thing here is that we don't currently check in the
hypervisor that unknown bits are zero, i.e. code using the new flag
will need to have a separate means to find out whether the bit is
supported. Not a big deal of course.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel