[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libvir] The problem of the definition of tuning informations



Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:00:10PM -0600, Ryan Harper wrote:
>   
>> * Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> [2007-11-08 10:08]:
>>     
>>>   I promised that mail for the beginning of the week but I still have
>>> I think tuning informations are that set of parameters associated
>>> to a domain or a host, which are not stricly needed to get the 
>>> domain(s) working but improve their runtime behaviour.
>>> To me this includes:
>>>    - scheduling parameters the scope may be host/hypervisor/domain
>>>    - vcpu affinity i.e. to which set of physical CPU each of the
>>>      vcpu may be bound
>>>    - and possibly others ...
>>>
>>> The problem:
>>> ------------
>>> People would like to associate those to the XML domain informations,
>>> the goal being to be able to restore those informations when a domain
>>> (re-)starts. 
>>> I have been objecting it so far because, I think those informations
>>> don't have the same lifetime and scope as the other domain informations
>>> saved in the XML. Since they are not needed to start the domain, and
>>> that once the domain is started the existing domain API can be used
>>> to change those informations, it is better to keep them separate.
>>>       
>> For at least (maybe only) Xen NUMA systems, the application of "tuning"
>> information after a domain is started does not achieve the same affect
>> as including the information during the initial construction of the
>> domain.  In particular, Xen needs to know which physical cpus are being
>> used to determine which cpus it from which numanode it will allocate
>> memory.  Adjusting affinity after the domain has allocated memory
>> doesn't allow libvirt or any management app to control from which node
>> domains pull memory.
>>     
>
>   yes, I understand and that's why I agreed to add the cpuset information
> at that point it's more than tunning because it may be irreversible for the
> lifetime of the domain, so this really should be in the XML. I'm not
> suggesting to go back about 'cpu affinity' i.e. to which physical CPUs
> a domain should be bound, but 'vcpu affinity' i.e. then how the virtual
> CPUs of the domain are mapped onto that cpu set, that can change
> dynamically without (serious) performance penalty. 
>
>   
>> I don't have any objection to separating "tuning" information as long as
>> we have the ability to merge permanent domain parameters with its
>> "tuning" information prior to domain construction.
>>     
>
>   My point is that you don't need the tuning informations to create the
> domain, if you need them it's not tuning.

Well said Daniel - a simple point I was missing.  I repeal my objection [1].

Thanks,
Jim

[1]  https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2007-November/msg00003.html


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]