On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 01:03:32PM +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 05:33:00AM -0400, David Gibson wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:14:26AM +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote: > > > > I don't see a reason to make this meta-grouping static. It would harm > > > flexibility on x86. I think it makes things easier on power but there > > > are options on that platform to get the dynamic solution too. > > > > I think several people are misreading what Ben means by "static". I > > would prefer to say 'persistent', in that the meta-groups lifetime is > > not tied to an fd, but they can be freely created, altered and removed > > during runtime. > > Even if it can be altered at runtime, from a usability perspective it is > certainly the best to handle these groups directly in qemu. Or are there > strong reasons to do it somewhere else? Funny, Ben and I think usability demands it be the other way around. If the meta-groups are transient - that is lifetime tied to an fd - then any program that wants to use meta-groups *must* know the interfaces for creating one, whatever they are. But if they're persistent, the admin can use other tools to create the meta-group then just hand it to a program to use, since the interfaces for _using_ a meta-group are identical to those for an atomic group. This doesn't preclude a program from being meta-group aware, and creating its own if it wants to, of course. My guess is that qemu would not want to build its own meta-groups, but libvirt probably would. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
