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] RFC: automatic NUMA placement

To: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] RFC: automatic NUMA placement
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:56:29 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C921DDF.6020809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <4C921DDF.6020809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am in favor of this being optional rather than default.
It is another case of the tradeoff between performance
and flexibility that I have ranted about several times
on xen-devel, and Xen's policy seems to be fairly random
(sometimes Xen chooses performance over flexibility and
sometimes the opposite).

I went looking through xen-devel archives for a previous
discussion on this (and to find when the code got added)
but couldn't find it... if you have links to the patch
and discussion, please post.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Gross [mailto:juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:39 AM
> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Xen-devel] RFC: automatic NUMA placement
> Hi,
> I just stumbled upon the automatic pinning of vcpus on domain creation
> in
> case of NUMA.
> This behaviour is questionable IMO, as it breaks correct handling of
> scheduling weights on NUMA machines.
> I would suggest to switch this feature off per default and make it a
> configuration option of xend. It would make sense, however, to change
> cpu pool
> processor allocation to be NUMA-aware.
> Switching NUMA off via boot option would remove NUMA-optimized memory
> allocation, which would be sub-optimal :-)
> What do you think?
> Juergen
> --
> Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
> TSP ES&S SWE OS6                       Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967
> Fujitsu Technology Solutions              e-mail:
> juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Domagkstr. 28                           Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
> D-80807 Muenchen                 Company details:
> ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>