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 indentation suggests you want nested XML elements, but the parent element is an empty tag, so you've actually got a flat namespace here.
Were we exposing the number of CLoS IDs before? Was there a discussion about 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 number of them, in this case 4. I can't remember whether that number is per-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 ? Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|