On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 20:48 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 01:32 -0500, Shivaprasad G Bhat wrote: > > The nodeinfo output was fixed earlier to reflect the actual cpus available in > > KVM mode on PPC64. The earlier fixes covered the aspect of not making a host > > look overcommitted when its not. The current fixes are aimed at helping the > > users make better decisions on the kind of guest cpu topology that can be > > supported on the given sucore_per_core setting of KVM host and also hint the > > way to pin the guest vcpus efficiently. > > > > I am planning to add some test cases once the approach is accepted. > > > > With respect to Patch 2: > > The second patch adds a new element to the cpus tag and I need your inputs on > > if that is okay. Also if there is a > > better way. I am not sure if the existing > > clients have RNG checks that might fail with the approach. Or if the checks > > are not enoforced on the elements but only on the tags. > > > > With my approach if the rng checks pass, the new element "capacity" even if > > ignored by many clients would have no impact except for PPC64. > > > > To the extent I looked at code, the siblings changes dont affect existing > > libvirt functionality. Please do let me know otherwise. > > So, I've been going through this old thread trying to figure out > a way to improve the status quo. I'd like to collect as much > feedback as possible, especially from people who have worked in > this area of libvirt before or have written tools based on it. I forgot to link this OpenStack Nova spec[1] that Shivaprasad pointed me to earlier. [1] https://review.openstack.org/gitweb?p=openstack/nova-specs.git;a=commitdiff;h=4a0c9d1fdba1ec71916e5e1a8fed03502f1a0c c5 -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list