Re: [Xen-devel] Re: c/s 21118: Magny-Coure breakage

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is worth discussing whether it makes sense to have the concept of sockets
in the NUMA interfaces. Would threads/cores/nodes suffice? Not sure sockets
give us any more than a hint about possible caching hierarchy (possible
socket-wide L3) and communication latency. That may be too vague to be any
use even where the concept of sockets-per-node is applicable.

 -- Keir

On 12/04/2010 11:41, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We're at an intermediate state in 4.1 NUMA implementation I would say. That
> changeset can be revised as necessary in future patches, but I think it is
> broadly correct in that it's adding the right kind of extra things to the
> control interfaces. Since we have 6-9 months before 4.1 is released we don't
> need panic about regressions just yet.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 12/04/2010 11:07, "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> Changeset 21118 breaks NUMA on AMD Magny-Coure due to introduction of
>> 'sockets_per_node'. On AMD Magny-Coure we have two nodes on one socket, hence
>> the existence of that field member introduces a breake on design level.
>> 
>> Please revert changeset 21118 or rework the patch to get rid of this field
>> member.
>> 
>> Christoph
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



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