On 2014/9/9 19:56, Peter Krempa wrote: >> + * VIR_DOMAIN_STATS_VCPU: Return virtual CPU statistics. >> > + * Due to VCPU hotplug, the vcpu.<num>.* array could be sparse. >> > + * The actual size of the array correspond to "vcpu.current". >> > + * The array size will never exceed "vcpu.maximum". >> > + * The typed parameter keys are in this format: >> > + * "vcpu.current" - current number of online virtual CPUs as unsigned int. >> > + * "vcpu.maximum" - maximum number of online virtual CPUs as unsigned int. >> > + * "vcpu.<num>.state" - state of the virtual CPU <num>, as int >> > + * from virVcpuState enum. >> > + * "vcpu.<num>.time" - virtual cpu time spent by virtual CPU <num> >> > + * as unsigned long long. >> > + * "vcpu.<num>.cpu" - physical CPU pinned to virtual CPU <num> as int. > This is not the CPU number the vCPU is pinned to but rather the current > CPU number where the vCPU is actually running. If you pin it to multiple > CPUs this may change in the range of the host CPUs the vCPU is pinned > to. Said this I don't think this is an useful stat. > > Rather than this I'd like to see the mask of the host CPUs where this > vCPU is pinned to. (returned as a human readable bitmask string). > > Any thoughts? IMO giving the vcpu's pininfo is more useful than the current pcpu number on which vcpu is running *now*. (I don't know the requirement of management very well.) But if it means the pininfo, what about naming it "vcpu.<num>.pin" or other name which is less confusing? -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list