On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > Some settings may be confusing and in case users use numad placement in > combination with static placement we could warn them as it might not be > wanted (but it's not forbidden). > > Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254402 > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c > index 0aab01fd4d50..c012b6efcab6 100644 > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c > @@ -2304,6 +2304,76 @@ qemuProcessSetLinkStates(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, > } > > > +static int > +qemuProcessCheckCpusMemsAlignment(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, > + virDomainObjPtr vm, > + virBitmapPtr cpumask, > + const char *mem_mask) > +{ > + int ret = -1; > + int hostnodes = 0; > + char *cpumask_str = NULL; > + char *tmpmask_str = NULL; > + char *mem_cpus_str = NULL; > + virCapsPtr caps = NULL; > + virBitmapPtr tmpmask = NULL; > + virBitmapPtr mem_cpus = NULL; > + virBitmapPtr mem_nodes = NULL; > + virDomainNumatuneMemMode mem_mode; > + > + if (virDomainNumatuneGetMode(vm->def->numa, -1, &mem_mode) != 0) > + return 0; > + > + if (mem_mode != VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_STRICT) > + return 0; > + > + if (!mem_mask || !cpumask) > + return 0; > + > + if (!(caps = virQEMUDriverGetCapabilities(driver, false))) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if (!(tmpmask = virBitmapNewCopy(cpumask))) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if ((hostnodes = virNumaGetMaxNode()) < 0) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if (virBitmapParse(mem_mask, &mem_nodes, hostnodes) < 0) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if (!(mem_cpus = virCapabilitiesGetCpusForNodemask(caps, mem_nodes))) > + goto cleanup; > + > + virBitmapSubtract(tmpmask, mem_cpus); > + if (!virBitmapIsAllClear(tmpmask)) { > + if (!(cpumask_str = virBitmapFormat(cpumask))) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if (!(tmpmask_str = virBitmapFormat(tmpmask))) > + goto cleanup; > + > + if (!(mem_cpus_str = virBitmapFormat(mem_cpus))) > + goto cleanup; > + > + VIR_WARN("CPUs '%s' in cpumask '%s' might not have access to any NUMA " > + "node in memory's nodeset '%s' which consists of CPUs: '%s'.", > + tmpmask_str, cpumask_str, mem_mask, mem_cpus_str); We've had a general principle that we don't use VIR_WARN for this kind of thing, because libvirtd logs are genrally invisible to the person who is making the mistake. Meanwhile if this is intentional, we're spamming the logs for a situation the user explicitly chose. So NACK to the entire patch, as it doesn't do anything useful IMHO. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list