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 ?