On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 6:10 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:51:44AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:20:06PM +0800, Eli Qiao wrote:This patch is based on Martin's cache branch.This patch amends the cache bank capability as follow:<bank id='0' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='0-5'/><control min='768' unit='KiB' type='unified' nclos='4'/><bank id='1' level='3' type='unified' size='15360' unit='KiB' cpus='6-11'/><control min='768' unit='KiB' type='unified' nclos='4'/>Either the XML is malformed, or the indentation is wrong. The indentationsuggests you want nested XML elements, but the parent element is an emptytag, so you've actually got a flat namespace here.Were we exposing the number of CLoS IDs before? Was there a discussionabout it? Do we want to expose them? Probably yes, I'm just wondering.What are CLoS IDs and what are they used for ?Effectively an ID for the allocation. The hardware has a limited numberof them, in this case 4. I can't remember whether that number isper-bank, but it would not make much sense otherwise.So, if guests are requesting a private cache allocation, and cos id == 4,then we can only run 4 guests ?
I think yes, but it’s per bank resource (the bank here is equal to cache id), if you have 2 banks , you can create 8 guests (each has 1 bank allocation)
As far as I know, the number of clos id is 16 on most of Intel xeon CPUs
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
