[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa o
From: |
Anthony Liguori |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:41:57 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.13.2+93~ged93d79 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> writes:
> Related: overwrite something you got from a config file on the command
> line.
>
> In both your example and mine, we have entirely separate options, and
> they have perfectly ordinary overwrite semantics: each option overwrites
> the given keys with the given values. The last key=value wins.
>
> This usage makes sense, and we obviously want to preserve it.
>
> Paolo's example is different only in that it's a silly. Preserving
> compatibility may mean that once we accepted silly usage, we can't ever
> reject it. Debatable. Personally, I disagree: I think we could outlaw
> repeating keys within the same option argument / configuration file
> section just fine.
>
> Finally, I don't think that we must have fancy-pants syntax to remind
> users that they're configuring a list. What's the chance of confusion
> there? What user would expect num_queues=1,num_queues=2 to make
> num_queues magically become a list?
My fundamental problem here is that we have the same syntax with
different meanings depending on the context.
Going back to our original example:
qemu -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=4
This is certainly ambiguous. Does this mean that you have a single cpu
for the node (VCPU 4) or does it mean the node have 4 cpus (presumably
ranged 0-3).
Given that ambiguity the following:
qemu -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=4,cpus=8
Does help the situation. A reasonable person could assume that cpus=8
overrides the previous cpus=4 (as it does elsewhere in QEMU) and
therefore assume they were creating a node with 8 CPUS (0-7) instead of
two cpus. However:
qemu -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=4:8
Is much less ambiguous. Granted, it's not immediately obvious whether
this is a range specification or a disjoint specification but it's more
clear than the previous syntax.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Eduardo Habkost, 2013/02/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Markus Armbruster, 2013/02/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Anthony Liguori, 2013/02/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/02/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Anthony Liguori, 2013/02/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/02/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Markus Armbruster, 2013/02/28
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option,
Anthony Liguori <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/02/28
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option, Markus Armbruster, 2013/02/28