WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Question about memory allocation on NUMA node.

To: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Question about memory allocation on NUMA node.
From: Yuji Shimada <shimada-yxb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:28:29 +0900
Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:28:54 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have a question about memory allocation on NUMA node for Xen
Hypervisor.

I think that the memory relating guest domain should be allocated from
the NUMA node on which the guest run.
Because the latency of the same NUMA node is better than that of a
different one.

According to this idea, most of the codes are good in xen-unstable.
But some memory relating guest domain are allocated from the NUMA node
on which CPU #0 run.

For example,
    - xen/arch/x86/domain.c
        setup_compat_l4(struct vcpu *v)
          struct page_info *pg = alloc_domheap_page(NULL, 0);

I think this memory should be allocated from the NUMA node on which the
guest run.

For example, 
    - xen/arch/x86/domain.c at
        setup_compat_l4(struct vcpu *v)
          struct page_info *pg = alloc_domheap_page(NULL,
                                 MEMF_node(domain_to_node(v->domain)));

As a result, machine performance becomes better.

What do you think about this idea? 
I'd like some comments.

If the developers agree with me, I would like to list them and submit
patch.

Thanks,

--
Yuji Shimada

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