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/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/6] xen,xend,tools: Add NUMA support to Xen

To: Ryan Harper <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/6] xen,xend,tools: Add NUMA support to Xen
From: Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:46:43 +0200
Delivery-date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:42:37 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060731190958.GI1694@xxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20060731190958.GI1694@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.5
Le Lundi 31 Juillet 2006 21:09, Ryan Harper a écrit :
> I've respun the NUMA patches against 10874 and I'm re-submitting them
> with the optimizations mentioned [1]previously on the list.  There was a
> request to see the overhead on non-numa/single-node machines.  I've
> re-run those benchmarks (ballooning up from small mem to multi-gig) as
> well as timing the initially domain increase_reservation time to gauge
> the overhead when allocating from the heap.

I am trying to use your patch on ia64.

In asm-x86/topology.h, you wrote:

extern unsigned int cpu_to_node[];
extern cpumask_t     node_to_cpumask[];

#define cpu_to_node(cpu)                (cpu_to_node[cpu])
#define parent_node(node)               (node)
#define node_to_first_cpu(node)  (__ffs(node_to_cpumask[node]))
#define node_to_cpumask(node)    (node_to_cpumask[node])

I think cpu_to_node and node_to_cpumask must be either a variable or a macro, 
but not both! (ia64 defines cpu_to_node as a macro).


Xen-devel mailing list