Hi, I just noticed libvirt tries to use the -numa option in a way that qemu never understood: if a node is configured to have a non-contiguous set of CPUs, it tries to generate a command-line option that looks like: "-numa node,nodeid=...,cpus=0,2,4,mem=..." ^^^^^ But this format was never supported by qemu. This format is even a bit weird, as "," is an option separator, and it is being used as a separator _inside_ an option.

My question is: should we support this option format in qemu, or should we change libvirt to use another format (that has yet to be implemented, because currently there's no way to specify a non-contiguous set of CPUs for a NUMA node). Any suggestions?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:39:46PM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote: > On 06/21/2012 07:51 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I just noticed libvirt tries to use the -numa option in a way that qemu > >never understood: if a node is configured to have a non-contiguous set > >of CPUs, it tries to generate a command-line option that looks like: > > > >"-numa node,nodeid=...,cpus=0,2,4,mem=..." > > ^^^^^ > > > >But this format was never supported by qemu. This format is even a bit > >weird, as "," is an option separator, and it is being used as a > >separator _inside_ an option. > > Exactly this was the reason back then to not support non-contiguous > set of CPUs. Inside qemu there is no reason why this shouldn't work, > it was just hard to write on the command line. So after a short > discussion we decided to drop this for the time being. If you have a > great idea how to specify this (I think a comma will not work, > because it will be catched earlier), I am all ears. Lets just use a ';' or ':' as the seperator instead ?