Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH] domheap optimization for NUMA

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:21:26AM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> 
> And, while I'm thinking about the interfaces, let's just stick to
> alloc_domheap_page() and alloc_domheap_pages(). Let's add a flags parameter
> to the former (so it matches the latter in that respect) and let's add a
> MEMF_node() flag subtype (similar to MEMF_bits). Semantics will be that if
> MEMF_node(node) is provided then we try to allocate memory from node; else
> we try to allocate memory from a node local to specified domain; else if
> domain is NULL then we ignore locality.
> 
> Since zero is probably a valid numa nodeid we can define MEMF_node() as
> something like ((((node)+1)&0xff)<<8). Then since NUMA_NO_NODE==0xff
> everything works nicely: MEMF_node(NUMA_NO_NODE) is equivalent to not
> specifying MEMF_node() at all, which is what we would logically expect.
> NUMA_NO_NODE probably needs to be pulled out of asm-x86/numa.h and made the
> official arch-neutral way to specify 'don't care' for numa nodes.


Keir,
It's really good idea.

BTW,
Do you think if need make xenheap allocation also NUMA aware in some case, e.g 
VMCS?

Thanks,


> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> 

-- 
best rgds,
edwin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] correlation of HVM tapX devices to domain, Steven Maresca

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH] domheap optimization for NUMA, Keir Fraser

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH] domheap optimization for NUMA, Aron Griffis

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH] domheap optimization for NUMA, Keir Fraser

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]