[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Still TODO for 4.2? xl domain numa memory allocation vs xm/xend
- To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:31:08 +0000
- Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim \(Xen.org\)" <tim@xxxxxxx>, Dario Faggioli <raistlin@xxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:31:34 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 16:28 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 16:21 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > cpupools don't seem to do this, I don't know if that is expected or not.
>
> Right, so cpupools do not appear to set the vcpu affinity, at least not
> at the level where it effects memory allocation. However both
> pool="Pool-node0" cpus="0-7"
> and
> pool="Pool-node1" cpus="8-15"
> work as expected on a system with 8 cpus per node.
>
> Should something be doing this pinning automatically?
It seems like it would be useful; But then we have the issue of, if a vm
was pinned to cpus 0-3 of Pool-node0, and you move it to Pool-node1,
what do you do?
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
