Re: [Libvir] Extending libvirt to probe NUMA topology

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 09:55:45AM -0400, beth kon wrote: >Daniel Veillard wrote: > > >>which would return an XML instance as in virConnectGetCapabilities. I >>toyed with the idea of extending virConnectGetCapabilities() to add a >>topology section in case of NUMA support at the hypervisor level, but >>it was looking to me that the two might be used at different times >>and separating both might be a bit cleaner, but I could be convinced >>otherwise. This doesn't change much the content in any way. >>I think the most important in the call is to get the topology informations >>as the number of processors, memory and NUMA cells are already available >> >> >>from virNodeGetInfo(). I suggest a format exposing the hierarchy in the > > >>XML structure, which will allow for more complex topologies for example >>on Sun hardware: >> >>--------------------------------- >><topology> >> >> >> >> >One small suggestion here... I've seen the term numanode used in some >recent Xen patches. It would seem clearer to replace "cell(s)" with >"numanode(s)". Then it is immediately evident what is being referred to, >yet doesn't interfere with the libvirt term "node". > > > >><cells num='2'> >> >> Hum, I don't have any strong opinion one way or another, cell sounds a bit more different so I guess there is less confusion. Using google it seems that 'numa cell' show up more frequently than 'numa node'. On the other hand the NUMA FAQ gives a definition of the later http://lse.sourceforge.net/numa/faq/index.html#what_is_a_node Cell was short and looking unambiguous in our context, since we already use Node to name the physical machine, that's why I suggested this. More opinions on the matter ? ;-) Daniel